BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr Speaker: I was about to say, “The Question is that the Bill be now considered.” Objection taken. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is always quick off the mark.
	Bill to be considered  on  Wednesday 2 November.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Central America

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in central America; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen O'Brien: First, on behalf all right hon. and hon. Members, may I express our sympathy, concern and deep condolences to the people of central America who are affected by the floods, especially those who have lost loved ones and their homes? The hon. Lady will have noted the statements made on 14 and 20 October by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). We have made an assessment of need, and currently we judge that the Governments and national relief agencies of those countries, supported by neighbouring countries such as the United States, and agencies such as the United Nations and International Red Cross, are responding well and providing sufficient essential humanitarian aid.

Kerry McCarthy: I appreciate that the Department for International Development is not involved in central America, but it is the best agency in the world in delivering disaster relief, as has been shown in places such as Pakistan. May I therefore urge the Minister to keep a close eye on the situation? Will he be ready to respond if our services—not just funding, but expertise—are called on?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for noting the technical expertise of the UK response and the Department. Of course, with official advice, we are keeping very close track of the situation, and we will take the necessary steps as called upon. However, our attribution through the multilateral agencies that we fund is clearly playing its part. Therefore, the UK taxpayer is indeed supporting the relief effort in that part of the world.

Andrew Rosindell: May I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent recent meeting with central American ambassadors, including the high commissioner of Belize? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will work more closely with the countries of central America—an important part of the world with which we have a lot in common, and with which we should co-operate more closely?

Stephen O'Brien: I am delighted to note that excellent meeting—the Secretary of State found it extremely enjoyable and helpful. Those many nations and our country are working to strengthen and develop our relationships, particularly on climate change and trade.

Jim Shannon: The people of the UK are very generous, but it is estimated that some 30% of humanitarian aid is removed at the harbour at which it arrives. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will have discussions with the countries that receive humanitarian aid to ensure that all of it gets to the people for whom it is intended?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring that the money reaches the destination and serves the purpose for which it is intended. That is absolutely central to the redirection of the Department for International Development’s aid effort in the past year. We are ensuring that we align every effort to results, to ensure that the money reaches the purposes intended.

World Population

Richard Ottaway: What steps his Department is taking to meet the consequences for developing countries of a growing world population.

Andrew Mitchell: Britain is extending to at least 10 million more couples the availability of contraception, so that women can choose whether and when they have children. We are also boosting programmes in health and education with a particular focus on girls and women.

Richard Ottaway: The world’s population will go past 7 billion this week, with profound effect. We have millions living in poverty, shortages of food and water and inadequate health provision. Does the Secretary of State agree that one root cause of that is the unmet demand for contraception from some 200 million women living in sub-Saharan Africa?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about this matter, is absolutely right. Indeed, I have been reading a pamphlet that he published—within the past two days, I believe—entitled “Sex, Ideology and Religion”, which is a treatise on population. He
	refers to the 215 million women who want, but have no access to, contraception. The Government are directly seeking to tackle that, not least in respect of the extra 10 million women. That is a good start, but we will do more over the next four years.

Ann McKechin: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to help women to enforce their legal rights to a minimum age for marriage, and to property and succession, which are clearly important to ensuring that women have a proper economic entitlement in their countries and to supporting planned families?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right to mention early marriage, which we are seeking to tackle in particular. We have conducted a pilot study with the Nike Foundation, with which we work closely, on preventing early marriage in the Amhara part of Ethiopia. The results of that pilot are excellent, and I can assure her that we are including in all our programmes, as a fundamental pillar of our work with girls and women, the point that she accurately made about stopping early marriage.

Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State is right to stress the rights of women to choose when to have children and how many to have, but does he also agree that the evidence is that if we can promote sustainable development the necessity for large families diminishes and population pressures tend to reduce, and that that ought to be at the heart of the Government’s objectives in partnership with our development partners?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. A classic example is the work that the Government are doing and the priority that we accord to getting girls into school. We know that girls who are educated get married later and have fewer children. That is a good example of what he is saying.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Barry Sheerman. He is not here.

Uganda

Douglas Carswell: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of budget support aid provided to Uganda.

Andrew Mitchell: There is a narrow role for general budget support in Uganda, but I am reducing its level by 80% over the next four years.

Douglas Carswell: Is there not a danger that budget support paid to the Ugandan Government helps to make them accountable to British officials, when we should be trying to make them more accountable to their own people?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about Uganda, is correct to say that that is a danger, which is why the Government have made it clear that wherever we use general budget support, we will always ensure that up to 5% of the money is spent on enabling civil society to hold its own Government and Executive to account.

Tony Cunningham: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to provide support and aid to the 2 million people forced from their homes by the terrible conflict in Uganda?

Andrew Mitchell: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He has emerged from six and a half years in the Whips Office, so it is a relief for everyone to hear that he can still speak.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly makes it clear that the importance of tackling conflict should be at the heart of development policy. Of all the 28 countries with which we have a bilateral programme, about three quarters are directly engaged in or have recently come out of conflict. That is an important aspect of everything that we do.

Green Economies (Caribbean)

Daniel Poulter: What steps his Department is taking to assist countries in the Caribbean to develop greener economies.

Alan Duncan: We are supporting the Caribbean to develop greener economies both bilaterally and through multilaterals. That support includes the development of renewable energy, such as bioethanol from banana waste in Saint Lucia, developing and implementing a low-carbon growth strategy in Guyana, and helping Anguilla implement a 10-year plan for achieving carbon neutrality.

Daniel Poulter: The Minister will be aware that at the Copenhagen summit there was discussion about funds being made available to islands such as those in the Caribbean, which are particularly susceptible to climate change, in order to combat the challenges that they face. Will he update the House on discussions his Department has had with those in the Caribbean, and other small islands, on supporting them in that respect?

Alan Duncan: Negotiations on designing the green climate fund instrument are not due to be concluded until the UN framework convention on climate change conference in Durban this December. The proposal that will be submitted to the conference would make resources for adaptation and mitigation available for all developing countries, including those in the Caribbean, and hence should also include other small island developing states.

Rushanara Ali: As well as prioritising the need for developing greener economies in the Caribbean and other islands ahead of the Durban conference, what are the Government doing—I want to reiterate this point—to provide international leadership to ensure that the commitment made in Copenhagen to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 is met by the international community, so that, as has been said, the most vulnerable countries get the support that they need for adaptation and mitigation?

Alan Duncan: I can assure the House, and the hon. Lady, that climate change is one of the three pillars of our development policy in the Caribbean. The UK is working bilaterally in the overseas territories, as well as
	regionally across the Caribbean with institutions such as the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre and the Caribbean Development Bank, as well as other donors, to promote green economies in the Caribbean and address the broader challenges of climate change.

Middle East

Michael Connarty: What plans he has to visit Palestine to assess the humanitarian situation.

Alan Duncan: I visited the west bank in July and saw at first hand the difficulties faced by Palestinians, particularly in Area C. The Secretary of State is keen to visit when his schedule permits.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful for that positive response from the Minister. I am sure that, like me, he reads the reports of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory, which I believe every Member should look at regularly. Some 90% of the water in the aquifer in Gaza is undrinkable, while up to 80 million litres of raw or partly treated sewage is going into the sea, and the Israeli authorities have just bulldozed six wells on the west bank. Surely nothing can be more pressing than a man-made humanitarian disaster on this scale. We must take positive action, and the Secretary of State must go and see it for himself.

Alan Duncan: Notwithstanding the difficulties of getting into Gaza, we have a broad measure of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are deeply concerned about the impact of restrictions on Palestinians living in Area C and Gaza. Access to water and land is restricted, food insecurity is high, and 18% of Palestinians in the west bank are living below the poverty line.

Martin Horwood: The minority Bedouin population of Israel and the Palestinian territories is particularly vulnerable to the conflicts over water, land use and boundaries in that part of the world. Will Ministers raise their plight with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities as an urgent humanitarian priority?

Alan Duncan: We do that regularly, and—in answer both to that question and the previous question—we also reiterate that Palestinians have access to only 20% of west bank water resources, which means that Palestinians have the lowest access to fresh water in the region. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, 90% of drinking water in Gaza does not meet international standards. We continue to call on Israel to cease actions that prevent Palestinians from gaining access to the clean drinking water to which we are all entitled.

International Development Outcomes

Nick de Bois: What assessment he has made of the international development outcomes of the UN General Assembly; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: Our focus at the United Nations General Assembly was threefold: maintaining momentum on the girls and women agenda; driving forward the lessons of the Government’s humanitarian and emergency response review; and ensuring that people focus on achieving the millennium development goals by 2015. Progress is being made in each area.

Nick de Bois: I thank the Minister for that answer. A year on from the Secretary-General’s Every Woman, Every Child initiative, launched at last year’s General Assembly, what progress is the UK making on the commitment to save the lives of 50,000 women and 250,000 newborns?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. We now publish—in the bilateral aid review and the multilateral aid review—precisely who we will support to achieve those objectives and how we will do it. Over the coming years we will be able to demonstrate that we are going further than we set out in the bilateral aid review, and the results that we achieve in all these areas—particularly in saving lives and advancing contraception—point to extremely good progress.

Mark Durkan: What priority is the Secretary of State giving to improving food security and agricultural markets and, in particular, the role of women marginal farmers?

Andrew Mitchell: This is a particular priority for the Government, not least in the horn of Africa, where we have seen severe food stress and food insecurity, especially in Somalia. It is also likely to be a focus next year, as we build on the progress being made through, for example, our work with the World Food Programme in Karamoja, where food insecurity and food aid are being replaced by progress and food security.

Somalia

Kevin Brennan: What steps he is taking to support reconstruction in Somalia.

Andrew Mitchell: Reconstruction in much of Somalia remains difficult because of the ongoing conflict. My primary concern is to help to save the lives of the 750,000 people, mostly women and children, who are facing starvation and disease.

Kevin Brennan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent interception of two young men from Cardiff—one from my constituency, the other from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael)—shows that it is in our national interest to ensure that we are engaged in reconstruction in Somalia? Will he commit to sustaining the Government’s support for the response in Somalia through 2012, and urge our Disasters Emergency Committee partners and others to do the same?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The whole of our development budget is spent in Britain’s national interest, and a large chunk of it goes to support our own security and prosperity here at home. Somalia
	is one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. It is a classic example of a failed state where, because we were unable to tackle the causes of deep poverty, we are now dealing with the symptoms of both poverty and deep insecurity.

Fair Trade Projects

Nicholas Dakin: What steps his Department is taking to promote fair trade projects in developing countries.

Steve Rotheram: What steps his Department is taking to promote fair trade projects in developing countries.

Alan Duncan: DFID believes that people can never escape poverty without the opportunity to produce and trade freely. By promoting open markets and a strong framework for international trade, we are helping to support fair market access for poor people. We aim to double the number of fair trade certified producers to 2.2 million by the end of 2013, and to improve working conditions in global supply chains.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his response. What steps is he taking to ensure that the Doha round of talks is completed and that a fair deal on trade will be achieved for developing countries?

Alan Duncan: That is an essential objective for the entire Department. International progress towards the conclusion that we would like to see is proving somewhat difficult, but we will continue our great effort to try to secure an improved trading environment for the world.

Steve Rotheram: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that fair trade best practice is reflected in the Government’s public procurement policy?

Alan Duncan: We optimise as far as possible everything that DFID and the Government buy, so that the fair trade label appears wherever it possibly can within government. That remains our objective in all that we do.

Greg Mulholland: We do indeed need more fair trade projects in developing countries, but that also relies on people buying more fair trade products here. Will the Minister commend and wish well the campaign to make Yorkshire and the Humber the first UK fair trade region?

Alan Duncan: We strongly support objectives of that sort. There are many towns across the country that have secured fair trade status. The Department and I—and, I hope, all of us—are enthusiastic supporters of fair trade, which is not just a notion but a sensible and practical approach to supply chains that ensures that some of the poorest people in the world can benefit from their hard work.

Somalia

David Rutley: What his most recent assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Somalia.

Stephen O'Brien: Somalia remains in desperate crisis, with 4 million people affected and 750,000 at risk of starvation. Life-saving aid is getting through, but insecurity, access constraints and displacement are undermining effective delivery. The scale of need means that continued support is required through 2012.

David Rutley: Sadly, many people in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya are suffering from a terrible drought, although an official declaration of famine has been avoided. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what lessons can be learned from this about the importance of long-term investment in food security?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In addition to relieving the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, we must also recognise that resilience and the efforts to address food security as a strategic priority in the medium to long term underpin all our efforts, even in the humanitarian response, in Kenya and Uganda, where famine has not been declared. We have just heard from the Secretary of State about the efforts being made in Uganda.

Topical Questions

Ronnie Campbell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Mitchell: We are supporting the national transitional council’s stabilisation work in Libya, which we have helped to plan since the beginning of the conflict. We are heavily engaged in helping to save lives in the horn of Africa, and we are boosting development in the Commonwealth ahead of discussions at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia later this week.

Ronnie Campbell: I understand that the Secretary of State will meet the President of Colombia in a few weeks’ time. Will he raise the issue of the assassinations and the killings? This year we have already seen 56 people killed for being human rights defenders. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the President that the Arab spring might knock on his door one day?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the importance of promoting human rights wherever we can. When I have discussions with the President of Colombia, I will certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place. The House will want to hear Mrs Helen Grant.

Helen Grant: What action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle forced marriage and early marriage in the developing world?

Andrew Mitchell: As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), we are supporting specific pilot studies to try to reduce the awful levels of early marriage, not least in Amhara in Ethiopia, where
	we have secured extraordinarily good results. This is a key pillar of the activity that we support in all our programmes.

Ivan Lewis: May I begin by paying tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my predecessor in the role of Opposition spokesperson on International Development? I can tell the Secretary of State that we will continue to support the Government where we agree on the 0.7% commitment and the importance of demonstrating aid effectiveness, but we will also challenge them where we think they are wrong. What measures will the UK propose at next week’s G20 summit to ensure that there is a renewed push by the world’s leaders to achieve the millennium development goals? More specifically, now that the Department for International Development has launched its nutrition strategy, will the UK use the summit to urge other G20 members to endorse the Scale up Nutrition movement?

Andrew Mitchell: May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position? I look forward to working with him as appropriate. He is quite right to identify the G20 summit next week as a key point where we can boost the interests of the developing world. He specifically mentioned nutrition, which is clearly very important, but the whole agenda for economic growth, which the G20 will address, is one that we should all support.

Peter Bone: We are exceptionally lucky to have a Secretary of State who is so passionate about relieving poverty in developing countries—but does he agree that what we want is not more and more of taxpayers’ money going in aid, but more and more trade? What can he do to open the European Union’s markets to developing countries?

Andrew Mitchell: I think that I thank my hon. Friend for his first remark. He is right to point out that aid is a means to an end and not an end in itself. That is why the coalition Government have specifically said that wealth creation, entrepreneurialism, enterprise and economic growth should be right at the top of this agenda.

Michael McCann: Later this week the International Development Committee releases its report on the Government’s decision to withdraw bilateral aid from Burundi. Although I cannot comment on the report’s content, the evidence offered by DFID to the Select Committee to support that decision was heavily redacted. Will the Secretary of State explain how the decision to redact squares with the UK aid transparency guarantee?

Andrew Mitchell: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, we release as much information as we possibly can in my Department, and we publish all expenditure above £500. I know that the Committee is concerned about the closure of the Burundi programme, but Britain is doing a huge amount for the country through its multilateral agenda. There are many other ways apart from having a country-to-country footprint to support development in Burundi, and we must make tough decisions in the interests of the British taxpayer as well.

Andrea Leadsom: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to issuing food vouchers rather than food aid in order to promote free enterprise and choice in the developing world?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an agenda that has been championed effectively, not least by Save the Children, and it is one reason why we prioritise social protection rather than food aid. The aim of all these policies is to try to get people off food aid into much greater food security—as seen, for example, in the project between Britain and the World Food Programme, which I talked about earlier.

Chris Evans: In the past decade 4 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and countless women and girls have been victims of sexual violence. What are the Government doing to ensure that political parties in the DRC refrain from violence during the forthcoming elections?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right draw attention to the importance of focusing on the DRC, because there will never be a peaceful Africa without a peaceful DRC. Britain is giving strong support to the democratic process. We have been responsible for the registering of nearly 30 million people in the run-up to the November elections, and we strongly support the United Nations force in the DRC—MONUSCO—which has a chapter VII mandate and is therefore able to protect citizens robustly, especially the women to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

John Glen: What evidence can the Secretary of State give that our Government’s global leadership in increasing aid spending is encouraging other nations to adopt similar increases?

Andrew Mitchell: Over the last year there has been an increase in many countries’ support for development, which is quite right and in accordance with the commitments that they have given. Britain has been in the lead in that regard. All our spending is in our national interest, and large amounts of it support our security, and indeed our future prosperity.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Luciana Berger: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 October.

David Cameron: This morning—[Interruption.] At least they do not have to do it in French.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This afternoon I shall travel to Brussels for further talks about the eurozone.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday it was reported that the Prime Minister had compared the families of those who had died at Hillsborough to
	“a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there”,
	and had complained that he was not being given enough credit for the release of all the Government documents relating to the tragedy. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the relatives and friends of the 96 Hillsborough victims for those grossly offensive comments?

David Cameron: What I would say to all the victims and their families is that it is this Government who have done the right thing by opening up the Cabinet papers and trying to help those people to find the closure that they seek.

Bernard Jenkin: Given that Chancellor Merkel has called formally on the European Commission to produce treaty texts to amend the European treaties, does my right hon. Friend agree with the following statements
	“that the accumulated burden of policies, competences, tasks and budgets in the European Union has become too great… that locating ill-justi?ed powers at EU level can undermine democratic accountability; that the time has therefore come to identify those areas in which EU action is neither logical, justi?able or workable”?
	Does he share my surprise that those words were written by the Deputy Prime Minister more than 10 years ago?

David Cameron: I have read that pamphlet too, and what it says is good, sound common sense. We do not know exactly when treaty change will be proposed and how great that treaty change will be, but I am absolutely clear, and the coalition is clear, about the fact that there will be opportunities to advance our national interest, and it is on those opportunities that we should focus.

Edward Miliband: Does the Prime Minister agree that, at today’s European summit, we need not just the sorting out of their problems by Greece and Italy and the proper recapitalisation of Europe’s banks, but an agenda to help Europe, and indeed Britain, to grow?

David Cameron: What it will be absolutely necessary to do this evening is deal with the key elements of the eurozone crisis, which is acting as a drag anchor on recoveries in many other countries, including our own. That will require decisive action to deal with the Greek situation and a proper recapitalisation of the banks, which has not happened across Europe to date—and the stress tests that have been carried out have not had credibility—but, above all, it will require the construction of the firewall of the European fund to prevent contagion elsewhere. That is the most important thing. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that a wider growth strategy across Europe is required. That was debated on Sunday, and all the Commission’s proposals—on completing the services directive, completing the single market, liberalising energy policy and cutting regulation—could have been written right here in London.

Edward Miliband: The point I would emphasise to the Prime Minister is that those are long-term measures, but we also need immediate action for growth, and that needs to happen not just at European meetings, but at the G20 next week.
	We know that the Prime Minister’s real focus has, unfortunately, not been on sorting out the eurozone crisis; it has been on sorting out the problems on his own side. He said on Monday that his priority is to repatriate powers from Europe: which powers, and when?

David Cameron: One serious question, then straight on to the politics; how absolutely typical!
	Let me make this point to the right hon. Gentleman: the idea that we could go into the meeting this evening about the future of Europe arguing that Britain should add an extra £100 billion to its deficit is a complete and utter joke.
	Let me answer the question about our relationship with Europe very directly. The coalition agreement talks about rebalancing power between Britain and Europe. This coalition has already achieved bringing back one power: the bail-out power that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government gave away.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister said in this House on Monday:
	“I remain firmly committed to…bringing back more powers from Brussels”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 27.]
	but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about his plan and he said:
	“It won’t work, it will be condemned to failure.”
	So one day we have the Prime Minister saying yes to repatriation, and 24 hours later the Deputy Prime Minister says no. On this crucial question, who speaks for the Government?

David Cameron: Let me quote what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. He said that there is a perfectly good case for
	“rebalancing the responsibilities between the EU and its member states.”
	What a contrast with what the leader of the Labour party said. Jon Sopel asked:
	“Let me ask this single question. Yes or no answer. Has Brussels got too much power? ”
	The right hon. Gentleman replied:
	“I don’t think it has too much power.”
	So the situation is very plain: there is a group of people on this side of the House who want some rebalancing, a group of people who want a lot of rebalancing, and a complete mug who wants no rebalancing at all.

Edward Miliband: Why does the Prime Minister not come clean about the split between himself and the Deputy Prime Minister? This is what the Deputy Prime Minister was asked:
	“Is David Cameron wrong to promise at some point the idea of another treaty that might bring powers back?”
	He said this:
	“This Government, of which I’m a Deputy Prime Minister, is not going to launch some sort of dawn raid, some smash and grab raid on Brussels. It won’t work, it will be condemned to failure.”
	So which is it: who speaks for the Government? It is no wonder the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers are saying there is no clarity in the Government’s position, and the secretary of the 1922 committee said the Government’s “position is politically unsustainable.” Is it the Prime Minister’s position to get out of the social chapter: yes or no?

David Cameron: It is this coalition that has worked together to get us out of the bail-out fund—to get us out of the Greek bail-out—and to deliver this year a freeze in the European budget. That is what this coalition has achieved. The split that we have is between the right hon. Gentleman and reality, and we have the greatest proof of that. I talked to the House about this on Monday, but it is so good that I have got to do so again. When he was asked if he wanted to join the euro, he said:
	“It depends how long I’m prime minister for.”
	That is the split: it is between the Labour party and reality.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister will be going to the Council in December to negotiate on behalf of Britain, and treaty change may be on the agenda. I ask him the question again. His Education Secretary said on the radio yesterday morning:
	“I think we should take back powers over employment law”,
	but his Deputy Prime Minister disagrees. What is the Prime Minister’s position?

David Cameron: I tell you what would be on the agenda if the right hon. Gentleman was going to the meeting in Brussels tonight. We would not be discussing Italy. We would not be discussing Greece. It would be Britain handing out the begging bowl asking for a bail-out. We know that he now wants to join the euro. The other thing that Labour Members want to do is leave the International Monetary Fund. They had the opportunity in this Parliament to vote for an increase in IMF funds, which was agreed at the London Council by their own Government—they rejected that. So we now have the extraordinary situation where they want to join the euro and leave the IMF. It is not France they want to be like—it is Monaco.

Edward Miliband: It is no wonder the Prime Minister had a problem on Monday, because the truth is that he led his Back Benchers on, making a promise that he knows he cannot keep and that is ruled out by the coalition agreement. We have a Prime Minister who cannot speak for his Government. On the day of the eurozone crisis, we have a Prime Minister who has spent the last week pleading with his Back Benchers, not leading for Britain in Europe.

David Cameron: I might have had a problem on Monday, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has got a problem on Wednesday. The truth is that if he went to that meeting tonight, his message to Berlusconi would be, “Ignore the markets, just carry on spending” and his message to the rest of Europe would be that Labour thinks that you should spend another £100 billion adding to our deficit—after they had finished laughing there would be no time for the rest of the meeting. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members should calm down and listen to Sir Peter Tapsell.

Peter Tapsell: “Pas trop de zèle” was Talleyrand’s advice to Leaders of the Opposition, which meant that he thought that they should not exist in a permanent state of hysteria.

David Cameron: As ever, nothing but wisdom from my right hon. Friend.

Angela Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any more projects have been awarded investment by the regional growth fund? Does the tally still stand at just two businesses helped by his flagship policy?

David Cameron: I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. There are about 40 projects that have been green-lit for funding, and this is completely on schedule. Fifty bids were successful in round one, receiving a conditional allocation of £450 million to deliver 27,000 new or safeguarded jobs, with up to 100,000 jobs in supply chains. Instead of carping she should be welcoming that.

Mark Pawsey: My constituency was recently pleased to welcome Mary Portas as part of her review of Britain’s high streets. Does the Prime Minister agree that Rugby’s positive approach to new housing, which will create new customers for the high street, is an effective way of supporting town centres?

David Cameron: I am delighted that Mary Portas has made it to Rugby, and I agree with what my hon. Friend said. We do need to build more houses in our country and we do need to reform the planning system, but we want to do it in a way that gives more control to local people, so that we can actually make sure that we have thriving high streets in the future.

Sandra Osborne: The whole town of Cumnock, in my constituency, is in a state of shock following the very brutal murder last weekend of a very popular local man, Stuart Walker. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending condolences to Stuart’s family and, amid much unhelpful speculation about the motivation for this murder, will he join me in calling on local people who have any information to come forward to the police to help them with their inquiries?

David Cameron: I certainly join the hon. Lady in sending condolences to her constituent’s family, and what she says is absolutely right. It was once said that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police cannot solve crimes without the help of the public and I hope that everyone will co-operate in the best way they can.

Gavin Barwell: My 14-year-old constituent Lillian Groves was killed outside her home by a driver who was under the influence of drugs. He was sentenced to just eight months in jail and was released after four months. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet Lillian’s family to hear their case for “Lillian’s law”, a package of measures to ensure that in future we take the menace of drug-driving as seriously as we currently take drink-driving?

David Cameron: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he says that we really have to make sure that we start treating drug-driving as seriously as drink-driving. This issue has been raised repeatedly, but not enough has been done. One of the things that we are doing is making sure that the police
	are able to test for drug-driving and making that drug-testing equipment available. As we test that and make sure that it works properly, we can look at strengthening things still further, and I am very happy to do as he says.

John McDonnell: It was reported over a week ago that the Bank of England had reprimanded one commercial bank, and there may be others, that tried to manipulate the gilts market to exploit quantitative easing. Could the Prime Minister ask for a report on this matter and, if it is true, will he explain to the bankers that we will use the full force of the law against them if they try to rip off the taxpayer?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is very important to send a message to all people in financial services that there is not something called white collar crime that is less serious than other crime. Crime is crime and it should be investigated and prosecuted with the full force of the law.

Duncan Hames: Proposals before the House next week will see cuts to legal aid funding for advice services, which in the case of Wiltshire citizens advice bureau amounts to £250,000 a year. I welcome the £20 million stop-gap the Government have found to replace this funding next year, but will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government put in place lasting funding arrangements to sustain these services on which so many people rely?—[ Interruption. ]

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is no good people shouting this down; every party in the House has accepted the need to reform legal aid. [ Interruption. ] You say you have not but you have accepted it. The figures are very clear: we spend £39 per head in this country on legal aid compared with £18 per head in New Zealand, which has a similar legal system, and in Spain and France the spending is as low £5 per head. As my hon. Friend has said, we are putting in the £20 million additional funding for not-for-profit organisations and we have also rightly praised the local councils that have gone on funding citizens advice bureaux. I shall certainly look at what he says because that very important organisation does vital work for all our constituents.

Paul Blomfield: I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating Sheffield university’s advanced manufacturing research centre, which celebrated its 10th anniversary yesterday and today with a series of events at Westminster, organised in partnership with Boeing and Rolls-Royce. Will he also join me and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills in endorsing the aim of growing our manufacturing gross domestic product from its current 12.5% to nearer the 20% enjoyed by most of our competitors, and will he commit the Government to work with—

Mr Speaker: That is enough. We have got the drift.

David Cameron: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and I am pleased to note that the Deputy Prime Minister hosted Sheffield university at No. 10 Downing street to celebrate its success. I think we are seeing some positive signs of rebalancing in our economy. Recently I was at the big investment that BP is
	making in the North sea, as well as at the opening of the new Airbus factory in Broughton in Wales. If one looks across our auto industry, whether it is Nissan, Toyota or Jaguar Land Rover, one sees that all those companies are expanding and bringing more of their production and supply chains onshore. There is a huge amount more to do, but we have to accept that we start from a low base as, sadly, manufacturing production has declined so much in the past decade.

Karen Lumley: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the nearly £1 million that has been received in Redditch for the pupil premium? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Education to push for a national funding formula as soon as possible?

David Cameron: Discussions about a national funding formula are ongoing. It is a difficult issue to resolve because of the historical patterns of differences of funding around the country. I think the pupil premium is a major step forward; it will be up to £2.6 billion by the end of this Parliament. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report says that we have made spending on education much more progressive by the action we have taken. We have taken difficult decisions but at the heart of that was a decision to protect the schools budget and per-pupil funding and, on top of that, to add the pupil premium to make sure that we are looking after the less well-off in our country.

Gloria De Piero: Last month, a leaked Downing street report said,
	“We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the Government than men.”
	Why does the Prime Minister think that is?

David Cameron: When you are making difficult spending decisions and have a difficult economic situation, and household budgets are under huge pressure from things like petrol prices, food prices and inflation, clearly, that impacts women. The Government want to do everything they can to help women and that is why we have lifted 1 million people out of tax, the majority of whom are women, and that is why we are putting much more money and time into free nursery education for two, three and four-year-olds. That is also why, for the first time, we have agreed that women working fewer than 16 hours a week will get child care. And we do not just care about this issue at home: because of what we are doing through international aid, we will be saving more than 50,000 women in childbirth around the world.

Nadine Dorries: The Infrastructure Planning Commission has made one decision—to grant planning permission for the giant American waste company Covanta to build a 600,000 tonne incinerator in Mid Bedfordshire. Thousands of people in Bedfordshire responded to the consultation, saying that they do not want this. The small print of the decision says that the decision is subject to special parliamentary procedure. Will the Prime Minister please let the people of Bedfordshire know that this Government are not like the previous Government, that we listen to local concerns and that we will ensure that that monstrous rubbish-guzzling atmosphere-polluting incinerator will not be imposed upon the people of Bedfordshire?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are difficult planning decisions that have to be made, but what the Government have done is made sure that the planning system is more democratic and reports to Parliament, and that Ministers have to take decisions and be accountable. I cannot speak for how those Ministers have to make those decisions. They have to make them in their own way, but we have ended the idea of the vast quango with absolutely no accountability, as my hon. Friend rightly says.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Prime Minister has warned African countries that unless they improve gay rights, he will cut their aid, yet in many African countries where we pour in millions of pounds of aid, Christians face great persecution and destruction of churches, lives and property. Here in the UK, anyone who displays a Bible verse on the wall of a café faces prosecution. Was Ann Widdecombe right when she said that in the 21st century hedgehogs have more rights than Christians?

David Cameron: Ann Widdecombe is often right—not always right, but often right. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The way we judge our aid decisions is to look at human rights across the piece. That means how people are treating Christians and also the appalling behaviour of some African countries towards people who are gay.

Stephen Lloyd: In Eastbourne we recently recruited 181 apprentices in 100 days. My local training provider, Sussex Downs, tells me that 91% of its hospitality apprentices go into full-time jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that apprenticeships work and in Eastbourne they work particularly well?

David Cameron: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about that. We found funding for an extra 50,000 apprenticeships last year and achieved almost double that because of the enthusiasm that there is among the business community and among young people. We are now running at about 360,000 a year and hope to achieve about 250,000 more apprentices than were planned under the previous Government. It is an important development in our country. We want to make sure that apprenticeship schemes are aimed at young people who need work and also aimed at the higher level—people going on to get degree-equivalent qualifications, so it is not seen as a second best. For many people it is the right career path, and there are companies in Britain such as Rolls-Royce where many of the people on the board started with an apprenticeship.

David Hanson: On reflection, is now the right time for the Prime Minister to scrap Labour’s indeterminate sentences for public protection, as the Justice Secretary wants to do? They were introduced to save dangerous violent criminals from harming the British public. Will the Prime Minister accept from me that the decision should not be about prison places, but about the protection of the British public?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will make an announcement about this shortly. What the right hon. Gentleman will find is
	that we will be replacing a failed system that does not work and which the public do not understand with tough determinate sentences. People have always wanted to know that when someone is sent to prison for a serious offence, they do not, as currently, get let out halfway through. We will be putting an end to that scandal and I expect it to have widespread support.

Mary Macleod: If women were to start businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 more businesses per year in this country. I have some exceptional female entrepreneurs in my constituency, such as Cath Kidston. What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage more female entrepreneurs to create growth and jobs for the country?

David Cameron: There are many things that Government can do. In the last Budget there were a series of steps such as the enterprise finance schemes that we have established and the changes to capital gains tax. The biggest change is a change in culture, encouraging people to take that first step and supporting them along the way as they go.

Alison McGovern: Last week the House, to its great credit, supported unanimously full transparency from Government in respect of all documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on South Yorkshire police, following the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to commit to the same openness and ensure that the Hillsborough independent panel has unredacted access to all papers?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at the issue the hon. Lady raises. I am not fully aware of the situation regarding the police papers and do not want to give her a flip answer across the Dispatch Box. The Government have done what we should have done with regard to the Cabinet papers, but I am very happy to look at the point she raises and get back to her.

Edward Timpson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising all the adopters and foster carers in Crewe and Nantwich and elsewhere for the fantastic work they do and encourage others to come forward to foster and adopt and to recognise during national care leavers week that we can do much more to provide care leavers with the sustained and enduring support that they often need and always deserve?

David Cameron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks from great experience, as his parents have helped to foster around 90 children over the past few decades, which I think is a magnificent example. As I said in my party conference speech, we really need to attack every aspect of this issue. It is a national scandal that there are 3,660 children under the age of one in the care system, but last year only 60 were adopted. We have got to do a lot better. Part of it is about bureaucracy and part of it is about culture, but a lot of it is about encouraging good foster parents and adoptive parents to come forward and giving them security in the knowledge that the process will not be as bad as it is now. Thorough-going reform is required. My hon. Friend the Minister
	with responsibility for children is leading this work and I am confident that we can make some real breakthroughs in this area.

Meg Hillier: On 11 August the Prime Minister told the House that there would be a report to Parliament on cross-Government activity relating to gangs. Where is that report and when will we see it?

David Cameron: We are working intensively right across Whitehall on the gang issue, because I think that in the past, frankly, this was something that was dealt with in the Home Office and there was not the same input from other Departments, so we are doing exactly that, and when we are ready to make a report to Parliament we will do so.

Harriett Baldwin: When I worked in the private sector—[ Interruption. ] When I worked in the private sector I benefited from statutory maternity leave. Will the Prime Minister remind the House how this Government are making work more flexible and family-friendly?

David Cameron: How typical of the Opposition. If someone talks about the private sector or job creation, all they have is a lack of respect and sneering. It is absolutely typical. My hon. Friend speaks from great experience. We want to be a family-friendly Government, which is why we are putting the extra hours and help into nursery education, increasing child tax credit, by £290 for the least well-off families, and why we will also be introducing proper help for flexible parenting.

Karen Buck: Westminster police command is now being required to lose 240 police community support officers, slashing by two thirds the number of PCSOs doing security and counter-terrorism work, and every single PCSO in the borough must now reapply for their own job. What message does the Prime Minister think this sends to the public, who want to see visible, patrol-based policing on their streets?

David Cameron: The point I would make to the hon. Lady is this: we are asking the Metropolitan Police Authority to find a cash reduction over the next four years of 6.2%. We face an enormous deficit in this country because of what we inherited from the Labour party. We have to make difficult decisions. Frankly, I do not think it is impossible to find a 6.2% cash reduction while keeping good front-line policing at the same time, and I am very confident that my good friend Boris Johnson will do exactly that.

Andrew Bridgen: Is the Prime Minister as enthusiastic as I am about the Localism Bill and the prospect that it will deliver real growth and empower local communities? Does he agree that the best way to tackle political disengagement is through local accountability?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We all know that we are not building enough in this country to provide houses for our young
	people, to end the scandal of overcrowding and to reduce the number of people on housing waiting lists. The best way to get that to happen is to ensure that local people really feel they have a say in and control over development in their own area. That is the way to square the circle. The top-down targets under the previous Government did not work, but the localist approach will.

Jamie Reed: The Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, pledged to fight bare-knuckled against hospital closures. Will he give the House a guarantee today that for as long as he is Prime Minister there will be no hospital closures on his watch?

David Cameron: The pledge I can make to the hon. Gentleman is the one I made when I visited his constituency, which is that we are funding the expansion of his hospital.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for all the work that the Department for Education is doing on free schools. Can he please give encouragement to the two sets of parents’ groups that are looking to build two free schools—a junior and a secondary school—in South Derbyshire?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that encouragement. I think the free schools policy is a great success, as we see a number of really high-quality schools coming in across our country, and it is depressing to see the attitude of the Opposition towards this policy. What we had was a new shadow Education Secretary, who in the first flushes of the job, said that he would support free schools, but as soon as Unite picked up the phone to him he had to drop that altogether. Do you want to know what their policy is now, Mr Speaker? He said:
	“What I said…is we oppose the policy…but…some of them are going to be really good”—
	schools—
	“run by really good people and we’re not going to put ourselves in a position as a Labour Party of opposing those schools”.
	So, they oppose the policy but they support the schools. What a complete bunch of hypocrites.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Prime Minister explain why his Secretary of State for Health was able to make concessions to the Liberal Democrats on the Health and Social Care Bill in the other place last night, but was unable to recognise the need for those changes when it was debated here? Is that not more about doing political deals rather that doing what is right for our NHS?

David Cameron: We are doing what is right for our NHS, and that is why average waiting times for in-patients are down, average waiting times for out-patients are down, hospital infections are at their lowest level ever, the number of mixed-sex wards is down by 91% under this Government, the number of managers is down and the number of doctors is up. If the hon. Lady wants to see further improvements to the Health and Social Care Bill, she will have plenty of opportunities.

Tom Brake: Two thirds of young people involved in the riots had a special educational need. Does the Prime Minister agree that that underlines the need for complex solutions which tackle educational underachievement and rehabilitation as well as punishment?

David Cameron: Of course, as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, we have to look behind the statistics and what happened and ask ourselves how we
	have allowed so much to go wrong in our society. Clearly, education and special educational needs play a role in that, but I do think it is important, and the public want, to see swift justice and punishment handed out when people break the law. We did see that at the time of the riots, and I think we should see it all the time.

Mr Speaker: I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly.

Points of Order

Bill Esterson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this morning’s Westminster Hall debate about the future of BBC local radio, the Minister used the word “priggish” in response to my intervention in which I asked him to address concerns, which many right hon. and hon. Members have raised, about a loss of jobs and an impact on vulnerable, elderly and disabled people who rely on BBC local radio. The debate was attended by more than 50 Members from all parts of the House, and it had been good natured and consensual. I wonder whether “priggish” is appropriate in a parliamentary debate. If not, should the Minister come to this place to apologise not only to Members but to those who face losing their jobs and those who rely on such services?

Kevin Brennan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman comes in, I know he is bursting with enthusiasm, but he must contain himself.
	What I would say to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is that control of that sitting was the responsibility of the Chair in Westminster Hall. It sounds like an intriguing debate, and it may well be that I should study it at some point, but I have nothing to add at this stage.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Obviously not on the same subject, because I have already given a ruling. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be dextrous enough to devise an alternative point of order on a wholly unrelated subject.

Kevin Brennan: Indeed, Mr Speaker. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister used the phrase “a bunch of hypocrites” and the word “mug”. Could you make it clear that they are in order? I would like to be able to use “mug” in the House to describe the Deputy Prime Minister, knowing that I would be in order, and also to be free with the use of “a bunch of hypocrites” as often as I please when describing the coalition Government.

Mr Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is, I hope, simple and clear: what is involved, in my
	judgment, is not a matter of order but of taste, and for the avoidance of doubt I would prefer not to hear either term used in the future by any Member.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Like many in the House, I warmly welcome the Government’s e-petition system, which triggered our important debate on Monday. However, I want to ask your advice, because there is no guidance on whether Members of Parliament should sign e-petitions. I believe that they should not do so, because such petitions call for debates. May we have some clarity on the process?

Mr Speaker: In a sense, it is flattering to me that the hon. Gentleman seeks my guidance, but it is not appropriate for me to provide it. My simple advice is that it is for the hon. Gentleman as an individual Member to decide whether to sign a petition, and I offer that advice to all hon. Members—make your own judgement on the merits of the case. There is no rule, no Standing Order and no matter of parliamentary proprietary involved one way or the other.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point or order, Mr Speaker, while we are on the subject of Monday’s important debate, which was the result of a Backbench Business Committee decision, would it assist the House if you were to indicate that when the Committee chooses a resolution for debate, it should not normally be subject to amendment, certainly not to amendments tabled by Front Benchers, and probably not to amendments tabled by Back Benchers who did not attend the Backbench Business Committee to try to have their suggestions adopted?

Mr Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that the Chair preserves, rightly, a certain discretion in these matters, and I always look at each case on its merits. Suffice it to say that I respect the Backbench Business Committee process. I am strongly in favour of clarity and straightforwardness in debates of this kind, and any proposed amendments tend to be considered by me in the light of that criterion.
	If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has been so patiently waiting. That has the advantage that the Chamber is rather quieter now.

National Curriculum (Emergency Life Support Skills)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Julie Hilling: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to include the teaching of emergency life support skills in schools as a compulsory part of the National Curriculum; and for connected purposes.
	Every year, 150,000 people die when first aid could have made a difference. Thirty thousand people have a cardiac arrest outside a hospital environment, but less than 10% survive to be discharged from hospital. Emergency life support skills are a set of actions needed to keep someone alive until professional help arrives. They include cardiopulmonary resuscitation—CPR—putting an unconscious person into the recovery position, dealing with choking and serious bleeding, and helping someone who may be having a heart attack.
	Those skills are crucial at the time of a cardiac arrest when every second counts. For every minute that passes, the chance of survival falls by 10%. If CPR is started immediately, the time that someone remains in a shockable and hence reversible condition will be prolonged. It also means that more brain function will remain, and more of them will be left if they are resuscitated. It is not often that any Government have the opportunity simply, cheaply and immediately to save lives, but my Bill would allow them to do just that. Teaching these crucial life-saving skills to every school pupil would make a tangible difference to civil life in this country.
	We know how it is when someone collapses or has a road traffic accident. Everyone stands around in a circle waiting for someone to act, usually too frightened to intervene. Now let us imagine a situation in which every school leaver could step in and attempt to save lives: fear gone, skills in place. Currently only 7% of people in the UK know first aid. We should compare that with Seattle, where one is rarely more than 12 feet away from someone who can save one’s life. There, one cannot graduate from school or gain one’s driving licence without learning first aid skills.
	The Government like to compare us internationally. In France, Denmark and Norway, emergency life support skills are already a compulsory part of the curriculum. Norway educated 200,000 people in just six weeks. A number of states in Australia include ELS, and in America it is part of the curriculum in 36 of the 50 states. Training is happening in the UK, but the only way to ensure that all children are taught these essential skills is by placing them in the national curriculum. The British Heart Foundation has worked with me on this Bill, alongside other charities such as the Red Cross and St John Ambulance. The British Heart Foundation has more than 1,400 Heartstart schools, three quarters of which are primary schools. It has trained more than 760,000 children, a significant number of whom have had to put their life-saving skills into practice; and 625,000 children have been taught valuable life-saving skills through the St John Ambulance first-aid materials.
	Let us imagine the difference that would be made if my Bill became law and every child became a life saver. The Government say they want the national curriculum
	to reflect the essential knowledge and understanding that people should be expected to have to enable them to take their place as an educated member of society. Surely knowing how to save the life of a family member or a member of the public would enable children to have an impact on the health of society. Ensuring that life-saving skills are taught in schools provides the chance to instil in all children how valuable life is and how important it is to be a good citizen. My Bill would provide a real, lasting cultural heritage.
	There are several places where ELS would fit into the national curriculum—in PE, in science, in personal, social and health education, or in citizenship—and it takes only two hours to teach. That is just 0.2% of a school year, or the equivalent of one cross-country run. In just two hours of their school life, children can learn the skills to save a life. The skills should be taught from year 7 and refreshed each year until the pupil leaves school. In fact, the skills can be taught to younger children; I have heard some amazing stories of how young children have saved lives. Moreover, these measures would be popular. Seventy per cent of parents, 78% of pupils and 86% of teachers have said that ELS should be taught in schools.
	One of my local schools, Smithills, runs the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart scheme. ELS is taught in a variety of ways, and the school is now aiming to widen the scheme so that during the school holidays parents and siblings are able to learn these vital skills too. The teacher in charge, Adrian Hamilton, told me that learning how to save a life in an emergency really engages the children at Smithills. He believes that it goes a long way towards helping them to become better citizens and that it should be an expected part of what happens in schools.
	Since I started to promote emergency life support skills, I have heard some tragic and some inspirational stories. I met Beth, the mother of Guy Evans who sadly died at the age of 17 in 2008. Guy was riding his motorcycle when he had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. He fell off his motorbike and lay there while his friends stood around not knowing what to do. If only they had been taught emergency life-saving skills, they would not have faced the trauma of watching their friend die without doing anything to help. They would not now be living their lives full of the suspicion that perhaps, if only they had known what to do, Guy would still be alive. Beth has been campaigning ever since to get ELS into the school curriculum and into driving tests.
	I also met Tabitha. When she was 17, a week before the summer holidays, she ran to join friends and teachers on a fire drill. She does not remember anything else, but she collapsed with heart failure. She had been born with a congenital heart defect that nobody knew about. Fortunately, her school secretary had been taught CPR and so administered it until, first, an emergency responder, and then the paramedics arrived. Tabitha made it to hospital with all her faculties still intact, where she had emergency surgery and made a full recovery. Tabitha is now a voluntary emergency responder and, like Beth, is working hard to get ELS taught in schools.
	I received correspondence from St Aidan’s primary school in St Helens telling me about a year 6 pupil who was with her parents and 15 other adults when her eight-year-old brother started to choke on his food. He went blue and virtually collapsed at the table. All the
	adults stood around not knowing what to do, but the year 6 child jumped into action, put her training into use and saved her brother’s life. If she had not been there, 15 adults might have watched a little boy die in front of them.
	Sheringham Woodfields, a complex needs school, told me about the enormous sense of achievement its pupils feel when they realise that they can save a life. One of its pupils received a bravery award when he saved somebody on the Norfolk broads.
	A few weeks ago, 15-year-old Patrick Horrock had a heart attack in Hindley leisure centre, just next door to my constituency. A member of staff performed CPR and another used a defibrillator to restart his heart. Patrick is alive and well because people knew what to do and had the tools to do it.
	Peter Roberts, a 12-year-old, was enjoying teacakes with his mum when he realised that she could not breath, speak or shout. She was choking on a currant. Peter stepped in and delivered his training perfectly, doing back blows. After the third blow, the currant came out. What makes the story even more moving is that Peter’s mum is paraplegic, following a parachuting accident a few years ago. She had no feeling in her windpipe and did not realise that she was choking. Peter saved her life.
	A young mum from the Cotelands pupil referral unit in Surrey was able to save her young son from having to have skin grafts because of the way she dealt with a serious accident. Christopher Boylan, a 17-year-old from Merseyside, saved his mum’s life by performing CPR when she suffered cardiac arrest. He had learned CPR at the Scouts.
	Brittany Bull Targett, a 13-year-old, saved 11-year-old Charlie when he fell off his bike and knocked himself out. Brittany said:
	“He was choking on his own blood so I cleared his airway, cleared the blood out, and put him in the recovery position. I have never done anything like this before and it was thanks to the training we had at school that I knew what to do”.
	There are many such stories of people who are alive and well because someone knew what to do. I cannot imagine anything more awful than standing by and watching someone lose their life when it could have been saved if only I or someone else had known what to do. Some of my local firefighters who are Heartstart tutors said something to me that really made me think. One of the reasons that we do not act when somebody collapses is that we are scared of making things worse. They said that if a casualty has stopped breathing, they are dead. Somebody else cannot make them any deader, but they can give them the chance to live.
	Cardiac arrest does not discriminate between young and old or between genders and races; it can happen to the fittest people. Tragically, 12 young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. Too many of us do not know what to do. My Bill would enable our children to have the essential skills to save a life and to never have to stand by and do nothing. I do so wish that it would become law.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Julie Hilling, Craig Whittaker, Rosie Cooper, Simon Kirby, Tom Brake, Steve Rotheram, Andrew Percy, Nic Dakin, Valerie Vaz, Chris Ruane, Mr Kevin Barron and Justin Tomlinson present the Bill.
	Julie Hilling accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 240).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Un-allotted Day]

National Health Service

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House recalls that the Prime Minister made a series of personal pledges on the NHS in the run up to the General Election which were carried over to the Coalition Agreement; believes it is now clear he has failed to honour three of the headline commitments in the Coalition Agreement; notes firstly that Treasury figures from July 2011 confirm that NHS spending fell in real terms in 2010-11, contrary to the guarantee that health spending will increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament; notes secondly recent central approval of changes to hospital services, in breach of a moratorium on such changes; notes thirdly the Prime Minister’s continuation, despite widespread opposition, with the Health and Social Care Bill, contrary to the pledge in the Coalition Agreement to stop top-down reorganisations of the NHS; believes there is mounting evidence that the combination of an unprecedented financial challenge combined with the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS is damaging patient care and leading to longer waiting times; is concerned that huge cuts to adult social care in England will further limit hospitals’ ability to cope with coming winter pressures; and calls on the Government to listen to GPs and NHS staff, drop the Bill and accept the offer of cross-party talks on reforming NHS commissioning.
	We read today that the Government were in open retreat last night on their Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Lords. Given that, we thought it only right to bring the Secretary of State here today to be held to account by this elected House. He tried to shuffle off his responsibilities and dug in when the Bill was in this place, only to give in down there. That came just hours after he had to confirm that he would still take oral questions in this House, despite a claim to the contrary by his preferred candidate to take over the running of the NHS. The Secretary of State may be on the run, but we will not let him hide. Our NHS is too precious to too many people in this country to be carved up in dodgy coalition deals in the unelected House. His Bill is unravelling before his eyes, and coalition health policy is in chaos. Today, we hold him to account for that.
	To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, the responsibility is not all his. It goes right up to the door of No. 10 Downing street. People will remember only too well, in the run-up to the general election, the then Leader of the Opposition’s ostentatious shows of affection for the NHS, his airbrushed face on the posters and three very personal promises—real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament, no accident and emergency or maternity closures, and no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. He protested his love for the NHS, and at photo call after photo call on the wards he routinely wore his heart on his sleeve. As we now know, he was protesting a little too much, and today we expose the hollowness of his promises.

Tracey Crouch: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post? He is back where he once was, but on the other side of the House.
	Last year, in The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was
	“irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
	Does he still stand by that statement?

Andy Burnham: I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Lady for reminding me that I am now a shadow of my former self, but I thank her for her words. I will come to the precise question that she asks. I did indeed say those words, and I will explain why in a moment.
	I was talking about the three headline promises that the Prime Minister made on the wards. They were part of a calculated and self-serving political strategy to detoxify the Tory brand, not a genuine concern for the NHS. It was cynical because, as we will show today, those were cheques for the NHS that the Tories knew they could not cash, and promises that they had no real intention of keeping. Let us take the Prime Minister’s three personal promises in turn, starting with the one on NHS funding. It will be good to get to the bottom of that once and for all.
	At the last election, Labour promised to guarantee to maintain NHS front-line funding in real terms. The now Prime Minister, by contrast, offered real-terms increases. How big those increases would be was undefined, but that did not matter. The important thing was that, according to the requirements of the detoxification strategy, it sounded as though the Tories were planning to spend more.
	I remember well our resulting exchanges with the then shadow Health Secretary, now the Heath Secretary, on the hustings. Indeed, the Prime Minister has in recent weeks been quoting what I said then, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) did a moment ago. I did indeed say that it was cynical and irresponsible to make those promises, and I repeat that today.

Daniel Poulter: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider “protecting the front line” to be the closure of many hospitals throughout the UK, mergers and the loss of vital cardiac services in such places as Ipswich? That was exactly what happened when he was Secretary of State.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman goes right to the heart of my speech today. We made those difficult decisions to get the NHS ready for the future. We grasped the nettle and took services out of hospitals and moved them into the community, because that is what has to happen if we are to have an NHS that is sustainable for the future. He stood on an election manifesto that promised the opposite. It was a dishonest pledge, and I will come to it in a moment.
	I said a moment ago that it was irresponsible to promise real-terms increases. I say that because I completed a spending review of the NHS in March 2010 and knew the figures inside out. I had also been in detailed discussions with the Treasury on the funding of adult social care, in preparation for a White Paper. The implication of what the Conservatives featured on an election poster—cutting the deficit on an accelerated timetable while giving the NHS real-terms increases—could mean only one thing: unpalatable cuts to other public services, particularly adult social care, on which the NHS relies.
	Despite that, the election pledge was carried over into the coalition agreement, which could not be clearer. It states:
	“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament”.
	A year ago, at the time of the comprehensive spending review, the official figures claimed that that had been delivered, with a 0.1% settlement—essentially the same as Labour promised at the election.

Mark Simmonds: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before the general election, when he was Secretary of State, he said in the now infamous King’s Fund speech that the state should always be the preferred provider, irrespective of the quality of care that it provided to patients? Does he stand by that statement today, or is he now trying to drive a patient-centric health service rather than putting political ideology above patient care?

Andy Burnham: I think I should refer the hon. Gentleman back to the King’s Fund speech, because I did not say the NHS should be the preferred provider regardless of the quality of care it provided. I believe that the public NHS should have the first chance to change, and that was the preferred provider policy. We did not want to pull the rug from under the public NHS with a policy of “any willing provider”. If the NHS needed to change, we wanted to tell it, “You have to rise to the challenge, and you have a chance to do so. If you cannot, other providers will get a chance to come in.” That was the preferred provider policy, and I would be grateful if he did not misrepresent it.
	As I said, a year ago the Government provided a 0.1% increase—or that was the headline, but the fine print began to emerge and their case began to fall apart from day one. It soon became clear that for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, that figure included an annual £1 billion transfer to local government, ostensibly for social care but not ring-fenced, so councils would be free to spend it as they saw fit. The health funding settlement therefore already went below a real-terms increase. That transfer turned the apparently minuscule real-terms increase into a real-terms cut.
	That still leaves 2010-11. When the coalition came into government, it immediately required primary care trusts to cut spending by increasing waiting times and restricting access to treatment, to generate an underspend in 2010-11.

Andrew Lansley: indicated  dissent .

Paul Burstow: indicated  dissent .

Andy Burnham: Ministers are shaking their heads, but I will read them the Treasury figures published in July this year, and let them tell me then that what I have just said is not true. The public expenditure statistical analyses from this year provide official confirmation of what I have just said. They show that in 2009-10 health spending was £102,751 million. That was in the last year of the Labour Government. In 2010-11, health spending was £101,985 million. There we have it in black and white—the first real-terms cut in health spending for 14 years. In fact, it is the first real-terms cut since the last year of the last Tory Government in 1996-97.

Henry Smith: I am interested to hear how the right hon. Gentleman is trying to manipulate those figures. How does he reconcile what he is saying
	with what his party’s Administration is doing in Wales, where the health service has been cut and hospital infections and waiting times have risen?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman uses the word “manipulate”. May I say that I take great exception to that? I have read out the Treasury statistical analysis from this July. If he is telling me that I have misrepresented it, let him stand up again now and say so. If not, he should hold his peace. I remind him that his party’s Government delivered a much deeper cut to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Labour Administration are now dealing with the consequences of that.

Ben Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman’s figures depended on the lack of what he called a ring fence in the social care transfer of £1 billion. I can assure him that as far as Suffolk is concerned, there is absolutely no problem in trying to deal with the ring fence. In fact, the county council spends more than the amount that was previously ring-fenced, because of the pressure on social care.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. The social care transfer comes in for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, but I was talking about the year 2010-11 and, in the year ended, there was a real-terms cut to the NHS, as confirmed by Treasury figures. This debate is about that fact. He and his hon. Friends stood at the election, with those airbrushed posters all around them, promising that they would not cut the NHS, but in their first year in office, they delivered a real-terms cut to the NHS.

Barbara Keeley: Is it not the case that, whatever Government Members say, 82% of councils offer social care only in critical and substantial cases, that thousands of people up and down the country are suffering the loss of their services, and that that will have a real hit on the NHS in years to come?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That was precisely why I said it was irresponsible for the Conservatives to promise increases to the NHS in the way that they did, on a much-reduced public spending envelope. That has led to precisely the consequences that she describes. Indeed, that hidden cut to adult social care has been quantified at £2 billion.
	I remember well Conservative party claims before the election about death taxes, but what about the dementia taxes that the Conservatives have loaded on to vulnerable older people up and down this country, who are now paying more out of their own pockets to pay for the care that they desperately need? That is the effect of cutting adult social care and cutting council budgets in that way.
	We today the nail the position once and for all. The real position is worse than the one I described because of spiralling inflation, which in effect means even deeper real-terms cuts for the NHS this year and in all the years that follow.

Chris Skidmore: The right hon. Gentleman mentions that the £2 billion transfer from the NHS social care budget is not ring-fenced, but I am sure he is aware that ring-fencing can have the perverse
	effect of ensuring that local authorities do not spend existing budgets. Will he clarify his position? Is ring-fencing a good idea or not?

Andy Burnham: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that it was irresponsible to pledge the money for the health service in the way that the then Opposition did in the run-up to the election precisely because I realised that more would be needed for adult social care. However, if the NHS is to transfer money to local government for adult social care, we must be certain that it will pay for that and not for weekly bin collections or for whatever else he thinks is more important than supporting older, vulnerable people with the costs of care. He makes my point that that money should have been ring-fenced, so that adult social care could have been protected.

Chris Skidmore: indicated  assent .

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman nods, but I am afraid that that was not the Secretary of State’s policy.

Grahame Morris: I compliment my right hon. Friend on how he is moving the motion. What are his views on the impact of the reduction of funding for the NHS on the front line, and on the number of hospital trusts that are breaching the 18-week target?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words and I shall come to precisely that point, but let us be clear about this one: the Prime Minister promised a real-terms increase, but he has delivered a real-terms cut. He stands at the Dispatch Box week after week boasting about increasing health funding when he has not. All the while, NHS staff deal with the reality on the ground of his NHS cuts. Does he not realise how hopelessly out of touch he sounds? Hospitals everywhere are making severe cuts to services, closing wards, reducing A and E hours and closing overnight, making nurses redundant, and cutting training places. Last week, The Guardian revealed the random rationing that is taking place across the country. There are cuts to pay for management services, one third of neo-natal units are reducing the number of nurses, and midwife places are being cut despite the Prime Minister’s promise to recruit 3,000 more.

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman is making a great deal out of cuts. The Government have committed an extra £15 billion to the NHS over the lifetime of this Parliament, but the Opposition have consistently failed to agree to commit to any additional funding. Will he make that commitment now?

Andy Burnham: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that I protected the NHS front line as Health Secretary. As Health Secretary, I would not have introduced a £2.5 billion reorganisation when the NHS is facing severe financial stress.

Therese Coffey: Is it fair to say that under his leadership of the NHS, Monitor suggested that it needed to make efficiency savings? Those are coming through now, but the right hon. Gentleman is trying to present them as cuts to front-line services.

Andy Burnham: No. Let me explain the position to the hon. Lady so that she understands it. It is correct that in the previous Parliament, not Monitor, but the chief executive of the NHS, suggested that the NHS would have to make around £20 billion of efficiency savings over the four years of this Parliament. That is called the Nicholson challenge, which I accepted. However, contrary to what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week, it was intended that every penny of that money would go back into the NHS to help it to deal with the pressures that it faces. I am afraid that the Government are again misrepresenting my position.
	My position is different from the Secretary of State’s because that challenge, on its own, would have been all-consuming for the NHS, meaning that it would have had to focus every ounce of its energy on rising to that challenge. The last thing in the world that the NHS needs is a huge reorganisation, because it will take its eye off the ball, meaning that it cannot rise to that challenge.

Paul Farrelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the so-called “pause for thought”, nothing was done to stop the NHS reorganising ahead of legislation that was yet to go through Parliament? Was that not contemptuous of both Parliament and of the genuinely held concerns of Liberal Democrat coalition partners?

Andy Burnham: Frankly, it is disgraceful that primary care trusts were allowed to disintegrate before Parliament had given its consent to those changes, leaving the NHS in limbo in most communities represented in the House. I have said that the Government have put the NHS in the danger zone, and I mean it. There is no capacity on the ground to help the NHS through these difficult times. It has lost the grip it would have needed to take us through the financial challenge, and I lay that charge directly at the Secretary of State’s door.

Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andy Burnham: I will give way in a moment.
	I mentioned that the Prime Minister is out of touch, and that he promised to recruit 3,000 more midwives and then handed out redundancy notices to them. However, if the Prime Minister is out of touch, I worry that the Secretary of State is in outright denial. On 11 October, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) asked him about the practice of hospitals re-grading or down-banding nursing posts to cut their costs, he replied:
	“I am not aware—my colleagues may be—of…trusts…seeking to manage their costs by the downgrading of existing staff. If you are aware of that, then, by all means, tell us, but I was not aware.”
	The very next day, that version of events was directly contradicted by Janet Davies of the Royal College of Nursing, who said that
	“the Royal College of Nursing has raised the issue of downbanding with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions, alongside other concerns such as recruitment freezes and redundancies in the NHS…Our members’ survey released earlier this month also revealed that 7% of nurses expect to be downbanded in the next 12 months”.
	If the Secretary of State would like to correct the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Health and confirm that he was aware of the practice of down-banding, he can be my guest right now.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not change a word of what I told the Health Committee—it was entirely accurate. I have checked the records, and at no stage had the RCN raised that issue with me.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State directly contradicts, on the record, a spokesperson from the Royal College of Nursing. If he stands by his evidence, will he publish the minutes of his meetings with the RCN in which it states that the issue of down-banding was specifically discussed?

Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: When I am ready.
	Will the Secretary of State promise today to publish those minutes?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I shall publish the minutes of those meetings, but I resent the implication from the right hon. Gentleman that I would stand at this Dispatch Box or sit before a Select Committee and say anything other than what I believed to be the complete truth.

Andy Burnham: If that is the case, I respectfully ask the Health Secretary why he has not responded to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—

Rosie Cooper: indicated assent.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is nodding. Why has the Secretary of State not responded to the letter that my hon. Friend sent to him several weeks ago pointing out the discrepancy between his evidence and the statements from the RCN? If he wants to adopt a pious tone in the House, he needs to reply to his letters on time and put his facts on the record.

Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

Andy Burnham: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling or asking? [Interruption.] I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Lansley: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to insult me, he ought at least to give way. I have seen no letter from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). I have seen a letter from the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, to which I approved an answer.

Andy Burnham: Well, that is no good to me. We have not seen that answer. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reply to hon. Members’ correspondence in a timely fashion, especially when it relates to serious issues about discrepancies between his evidence and statements made by the RCN.

Rosie Cooper: I would like to inform both my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State that I did, in fact, write to you but have received no reply. In my letter, which I shall ensure gets to you again, I asked you to publish the minutes of that meeting. It was very clear. One or other of you have made a severe error.

Mr Speaker: Order. We must preserve the proper parliamentary terms. Nobody has written to me and I have not made a severe error. We will leave it at that.

Andy Burnham: It is clear that we will get to the bottom of this, because the Secretary of State has committed to publishing the minutes, and if he is suggesting that the RCN has been inaccurate, he needs to produce the evidence.
	That takes me to the Prime Minister’s second personal promise on the NHS, which deals with hospital reconfiguration and the mythical moratorium.

Tony Baldry: rose—

Andy Burnham: I shall in a moment.
	If we thought that the Conservative party’s promises on funding were bad enough, the sheer audacity of its claims on hospital closures is breathtaking. Before the last election, the right hon. Gentleman toured the country promising the earth to every Conservative candidate he met. I recall seeing his commitments—I have them here—pile up in the Ashcroft-funded glossy leaflets that landed on my desk in the Department of Health. He said that he would reopen the accident and emergency department in Burnley; he said that he would save and A and E in Hartlepool, but, scandalously, only if the town elected a Conservative MP; and I well remember the day he visited his hon. Friend—although, after this week, I doubt that the Government Front Bench team still consider him a friend—the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and promised the people of Bury in the leaflets I have here:
	“Vote Conservative and if there is a Conservative government the maternity department will be kept open.”
	It could not be clearer. However, the maternity department at Fairfield hospital is scheduled to close next March. It is disgraceful. However, the Prime Minister’s most shameful politicking came in north London. I lost count of the number of times he promised to save the A and E department at Chase Farm hospital.

Chris Skidmore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to name my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) without telling him?

Mr Speaker: Yes, it is.

Andy Burnham: I point out to the hon. Gentleman, with his clever point of order, that I did contact the office of the hon. Member for Bury North and, indeed, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois).

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but perhaps this is an opportunity for me to make the position clear. I am not cavilling at the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris
	Skidmore), but the position is basically this: if a Member is going to impugn the integrity or attack the record of an individual hon. Member, the Member who is the subject of the criticism should be notified in advance. The fact that someone simply intends to refer to another Member and something that may or may not have happened in his constituency during an election campaign, or at any other time, is not something of which prior notification is required.

Andy Burnham: After that rude interruption from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I shall get back to my script.
	Just days after the election, the Prime Minister went to Chase Farm hospital, with the Secretary of State, to announce the coalition’s new policy of the moratorium and the following commitment in the coalition agreement:
	“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards.”
	I have with me the photograph from that very visit of the Secretary of State holding up a placard stating his opposition to any changes to the A and E at Chase Farm hospital. However, he has recently failed to prevent those changes to the A and E department and maternity unit at Chase Farm hospital, leaving the new hon. Member for Enfield North writing a desperate letter to the Prime Minister stating that his constituents had been utterly let down by them both. I do not know whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State have the decency to feel embarrassed today, hearing these cynical promises repeated in the House. The proposed moratorium and opposition to closures were purely political and designed to help the Conservatives win votes in marginal seats. That is a fact.

Tony Baldry: I apologise for not having intervened quickly enough earlier, but the right hon. Gentleman says that he accepts the Nicholson challenge. Given that efficiency savings will have to be made in the NHS, where does he envisage those savings being made? It seems to me that every hospital trust will have to make efficiency savings somewhere, as a result of the Nicholson challenge.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman asks a very fair question. It is precisely such issues—about how to produce the savings—that are the important issues. Care has to be taken out of the hospital setting and we have to prevent too many elderly people, in particular, from going into hospital in the first place if we are to create an NHS that is able to face the future and that is financially and structurally sound. That is why I take such exception to the naked opportunism that we saw before the election, when I, as Health Secretary, was taking on some of those difficult challenges and grasping the nettle, including in my own backyard in Greater Manchester, where there was a difficult review of maternity and children services, involving the closure of four maternity units and shrinking their number to eight. We did that, we took on that debate, and yet the now Health Secretary was touring those marginal constituencies in Greater Manchester, saying that he would overturn our decision in office, but he has not done it. That is precisely the point that I am making to the House. We need a Health Secretary prepared to take those difficult decisions, if the NHS is to be able to make the savings that will sustain it in the long term.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I missed the opportunity to intervene when efficiency savings were being discussed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to this problem is proper discussion with the experts within the health service—with the nurses, doctors and all the people who administer our fantastic service? They are the ones who can give us ideas for efficiency savings. The hallmark of the Government is their failure to listen to the professionals.

Andy Burnham: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When we were in government, we said that there had to be a clinical case for change, if changes to hospital services were to be made. I mentioned Greater Manchester a moment ago. There was a clinical case to support those reforms. The experts, to which she rightly pointed, said that about 50 babies’ lives would be saved every year by specialising care in fewer locations. In such circumstances, politicians have a moral obligation to listen to those experts and to make changes, no matter how politically difficult they are. That is why I say that it was sheer opportunism of the worst kind for the Government, when in opposition, to say that they would have a moratorium on any changes and to tour those marginal constituencies promising to overturn decisions, when in fact they had no intention of doing so. I put it to the House that the people of Bury, Burnley and Enfield have now clearly discovered what opportunism there is from those on the Conservative Front Bench.

Sarah Newton: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore welcome one of the Government’s first actions, which was to change the NHS operating guidelines for reconfigurations to ensure categorically that clinicians and the communities they serve were in the driving seat for future reconfiguration of the NHS?

Andy Burnham: If that is the case and the people of Enfield are in control of the decision, would Chase Farm A and E be closing? What the hon. Lady describes is a complete and utter reinvention of the moratorium policy. She stood on an election manifesto that promised a moratorium. Where is it? It has not materialised. It is a mythical policy that was designed to win votes; it had nothing to do with the good stewardship of the national health service.

Andrew Love: rose—

Andy Burnham: I give way to my hon. Friend, who has a nearby interest in Chase Farm.

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and yes, I do have an interest because constituents of mine have been affected by the decision at Chase Farm. Not only did the Secretary of State come to Chase Farm immediately after the election, but he announced the change in policy on reconfigurations. He introduced the so-called four tests, none of which has ever saved any unit, in any part of the country. The reality is that he seriously misled the people of Enfield, who are now bearing down on their Member of Parliament, who also misled them on this policy. It is an outrage and they feel badly let down by this Government on health service reform.

Andy Burnham: For the avoidance of doubt, let me address directly what my hon. Friend has said. A moment ago I mentioned a photograph of the Secretary of State on a visit to Chase Farm hospital just days after the election, when he announced his so-called moratorium—although no one has yet seen any evidence of it. He is holding up a placard in that photograph that says, “HANDS OFF! Chase Farm A & E”, underneath which are the words: “I oppose any cutbacks to our A & E,” and on the bottom we can see his signature. How on earth he can square that with the letter that he recently exchanged with his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North, I do not know. I do not know how the Secretary of State can reconcile those two things in his mind or how he could look anyone in Enfield North in the eye, having promised them that he would save their accident and emergency department. It is quite scandalous. People across the country are discovering that the Prime Minister’s moratorium is utterly meaningless, as A and Es restrict opening hours and maternity wards close.
	We now come to the third of the Prime Minister’s broken promises, on NHS reorganisation. Again, the coalition agreement could not have been clearer:
	“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.
	I have never understood how those in the coalition could possibly sign up to those words, when only weeks later they would bring forward a White Paper heralding the mother of all reorganisations, the biggest since 1948. I can see the cynical politics behind the Prime Minister’s first two pledges, but on this pledge at least he was right. A reorganisation is precisely the last thing that the NHS needs right now. I am clear: the abandonment of that pledge is the Prime Minister’s biggest mistake in office. If he ploughs on, he will ultimately pay a heavy price for it, because it is a catastrophic error of judgment to combine the biggest ever financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever reorganisation.
	As Health Secretary, I was told by officials that rising to the financial challenge would require every ounce of our energy and focus. The NHS would need stability. Instead, this Government have picked up the pieces of the jigsaw and thrown them up in the air, distracting the service at the very moment it needed maximum focus. Grip has been lost; the NHS is drifting.

Henry Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that our NHS needs greater efficiency and localism, and that this requires reorganisation?

Andy Burnham: I said just a moment ago that I was the one who put my name to the Nicholson challenge, because that money was going to help the NHS respond to the new demands placed on it at this difficult time, so the hon. Gentleman need not lecture me about efficiency. He needs to tell me how placing a moratorium on change in the NHS helps it to respond and deliver those efficiencies. That is the contradiction of his position, and he stood for election on that policy, as did others.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Andrew George: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.

Andrew George: I accept that the Health and Social Care Bill is the longest and most incoherent suicide note in NHS history. Indeed, I am robust on this issue: I have voted against the Bill and will continue to take that view. However, considering that the right hon. Gentleman was involved when preferential arrangements were provided for private sector providers coming into the NHS, is this debate not an opportunity for him to acknowledge that at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for what was a rather ridiculous and one-sided policy?

Andy Burnham: Let me first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s courage in standing up and voting against the Health and Social Care Bill. I just wish that more of his Liberal Democrat colleagues had similar conviction and principle, and could stand up to the Government on a Bill that he knows—and which, in their heart of hearts, many of them know—will seriously damage the NHS.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the introduction of private sector capacity. I will not apologise for that, because that additional capacity was brought in to bring down NHS waiting lists, something that benefited his constituents. By bringing in that extra capacity we brought down NHS waiting lists to an all-time low and delivered the 18-week target. I am not going to apologise for that. The reason the NHS commands such strong support in the country today is that people’s experience of it improved in those years. I mentioned the preferred provider policy a moment ago. I believe that the private sector has a role to play in delivering world-class care to patients, and I am happy to put that on record.

Kevin Barron: At the heart of the current Bill are the 98 clauses that introduce competition law into the national health service—something that the last Government did not pass even one clause to do. Is not the ideology lying at the heart of the Bill what will wreck our national health service?

Andy Burnham: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Make no mistake: if the Bill passes, the NHS will never be the same again. The Bill will unpick the fabric of a public national health care system—a planned system—and turn it into a free-for-all, as he says. Indeed, it is unbelievable to see a letter in The Guardian today from senior Liberal Democrats—many of whom made the same argument a few weeks ago as my right hon. Friend—now saying that, because of a few tweaks to the Secretary of State’s powers, the time has come to abandon all their concerns about the provisions. That is a ridiculous statement to make. If they still have concerns about competition and privatisation, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand up against the Bill, instead of writing sanctimonious letters to The Guardian.
	Grip has been lost; the NHS is drifting. However, the Government cannot say that they were not warned. Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, told the Public Accounts Committee that the reorganisation had increased the scale of the financial challenge:
	“I’ll not sit here and tell you that the risks have not gone up. They have. The risks of delivering the totality of…the efficiency savings that we need over the next four years have gone up because of the big changes that are going on in the NHS as a whole.”
	This has been a lost year in the NHS—a crucial year, when it needed to face up to the financial challenge—but things are not getting better. We face months of further uncertainty, as the Secretary of State battles on with his complicated and unwanted Bill. Four-hundred and ninety pages, 70-page letters to peers, amendments made on the hoof: it is a total mess. The NHS deserves better than this. Even the man the Secretary of State brought in to run his new NHS commissioning board describes his Bill as “completely unintelligible,” and went on to say:
	“It is going to be messy as we go through a very complex transitional programme.”
	And this from the Secretary of State’s friends.
	The harsh truth is that the Secretary of State has comprehensively failed to build the consensus he needs behind his Bill. GPs do not want it; nurses do not want it; midwives do not want it; patients do not want it. I say to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary today: stop digging in. Drop this Bill. If they do, my offer still stands, as our motion makes clear. We will work with the Secretary of State to reform NHS commissioning, giving GPs and other clinicians a bigger role. That can be achieved without legislation and a major structural upheaval of the entire NHS. It can be done through existing legal structures, giving immediate stability and saving millions.
	We make our offer again today, as it is time for all politicians to put the NHS first. It is slipping backwards, and the warning signs are there for all to see. Waiting lists and waiting times are getting longer, with a 48% rise in the last year in the numbers of patients waiting more than 18 weeks. When patients are waiting longer, it is unforgivable that £2 billion to £3 billion has been set aside to pay for the costs of reorganisation. It is also unforgivable that £850 million is being spent on making people redundant who will end up being re-employed elsewhere in the system, in the new clinical commissioning groups.
	We are witnessing a return to the bad old days of waiting longer or paying to go private. This is just a glimpse of the future. If the Bill passes, the NHS will never be the same again. We have all seen the adverts on television for the health lottery. Is this the right hon. Gentleman’s early marketing and his new brand name for our NHS?

Bob Blackman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that one of the severe problems that the national health service is facing came about on his watch, when primary care trusts were allowed to build up huge deficits without making the economies and efficiencies that should have been made at that time, rather than on this Government’s watch?

Andy Burnham: I have never said that the NHS was perfect, or that there were no challenges during our time in government. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman what happened when the NHS was facing those deficits in 2006 and 2007. We took a grip at the centre and we brought those trusts back into financial balance, through hard work. There was a turnaround team in the Department, and we made sure that those difficulties were tackled at root. I do not see the same grip in the national health service right now. I see drift and lack of focus, and I see huge distraction as a result of this unwanted Bill.

Sarah Newton: The image that the right hon. Gentleman has just painted is totally inaccurate. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust is struggling with an enormous debt, which it incurred as a result of enormous reorganisations under Labour and a ridiculous accountancy measure that doubles the debt every year. I will not take comments like that from the right hon. Gentleman, because Cornwall has been left in a very difficult situation that this Government have been left to sort out.

Andy Burnham: I did not say that everything was perfect, but I said a moment ago that we took a grip on those problems and dealt with them from the centre. In the hon. Lady’s Government’s NHS, there will be—what are the words?—no bail-outs. Everyone will be left to fend for themselves. Does that mean that her hospital will be allowed to go bust? I do not know, but that is the implication of the Secretary of State’s White Paper and Bill, and she needs to direct her questions to him.
	The fact is that we are now looking at a national postcode lottery, in which GPs are free to send letters to patients telling them that minor operations must now be paid for, and in which hospitals no longer have maximum waiting times for NHS patients and can devote the freed-up theatre time to private patients as there is no longer any cap on private work. The Government have placed the NHS in the danger zone. It has been placed there by a Prime Minister who said “Trust me” and has gone back on his word. He wrote cheques for the NHS in opposition that he knew he would not be able to cash when in government. He made promises that he knew he would be unable to keep, in order to win votes. This is the Prime Minister’s very own great NHS betrayal, and, far from detoxifying his party, he has proved once and for all that we really cannot trust the Tories with our NHS.

Andrew Lansley: I ask the House to reject the motion. I am sorry about the tone of much of what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. This was his first opportunity to make a speech about the NHS and I thought that he might take the trouble to thank NHS staff for what they have achieved over the past year, rather than disparage and denigrate everything they have been doing. I also thought that he might take the opportunity to approach the issues facing the NHS from the standpoint of patients, rather than simply playing politics with the service, but he did not. Insulting me was the least of the problems in his speech. It seemed like the Burnham memorial speech—clearly no hard feelings about losing the election, then. Having spent 13 years in the House in opposition, I shall—at the risk of patronising him—give him a few words of advice: do not keep fighting the election that you lost. It is not the way to win any future election, and it will carry absolutely no credibility in the NHS.
	Equally, the right hon. Gentleman will carry no credibility by wandering around telling people that he was not planning to cut the NHS budget, given that he made it absolutely clear in The Guardian last year that that was exactly what he intended to do and that he told us, in the run-up to the spending review, that it would be irresponsible to increase the NHS budget in real terms. I searched the Labour manifesto for any commitment to funding the NHS in real terms, but there is none. In
	March 2010, he might have said that he knew all these things, but he did not tell the public about any of it—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Well, it is here in his manifesto. The only reference to any kind of investment in the NHS is a plan to
	“refocus capital investment on primary and community services”.

Lyn Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: In a moment.
	We know what that meant, because when we opened the books on arriving in the Department we saw that Labour was planning to slash by more than half the capital budget of the NHS. Every Member of Parliament who has a major hospital building programme in their constituency would have been affected by that. That might include my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in his constituency, or Members from Liverpool, who have the rebuild of the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospitals and, all being well, the rebuilding of Alder Hey. That might also include the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). The last Labour Government, before the election, to cut the capital budget, and his project—the West Cumberland hospital at Whitehaven—could have been at risk as a consequence of that. [ Interruption. ]

Simon Burns: No, he saved it.

Andrew Lansley: I went with my colleagues; in fact, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stood here at the Dispatch Box and reconfirmed support for that project, so I will not have any nonsense from the hon. Member for Copeland. [ Interruption. ] Withdraw that. I have not misled the House. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury came here and reconfirmed support for that project. I will not put up with being told from a sedentary position that I am misleading the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that accusation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that it was not intentional, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) would not wish to leave it on the record. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw. The hon. Gentleman has been asked to withdraw.”] Order. I do not need any advice. I am sure that it was not intentional, and that the hon. Member for Copeland would not wish to leave it on the record.

Jamie Reed: It was unintentional— [ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that we have established that it was not intentional. I call the Secretary of State.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will now give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he now admit that this is the first time that the NHS budget has seen a real-terms fall since 1996, the last year of the Tory Government?

Andrew Lansley: One of the reasons that the House should reject the motion is that it is deeply flawed. Let me just take up the hon. Lady’s argument. What an own goal it is for Labour to say that NHS funding fell in 2010-11. That was the last year of the Labour Government’s spending plans, not ours. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11—[ Interruption. ] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11 was exactly the same amount as the last Labour Government determined under their spending plans. So if Labour is accusing the NHS of having a reduction in real terms in 2010-11, that is a complete own goal, because it happened as a consequence of its decisions, not ours.

Andy Burnham: May I just explain to the Secretary of State the difference between projected budgets and out-turn figures, as published by the Treasury? Will he confirm that the figures published in the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis will be the figures that go into the historical record, and that they will record a real-terms cut because of underspends that he ordered?

Andrew Lansley: That is absolutely not true, because we ordered absolutely no cuts in the NHS budget in 2010-11 compared with the spending plans that we inherited. So that is a complete own goal on the right hon. Gentleman’s part. And in regard to all that stuff that he talked about the support that the NHS is giving to social care, I can tell him that, with the exception of the underspend in the departmental central budgets, because we cut back on all of its bureaucracy and its IT programme, we spent over £150 million, or whatever it was—

Grahame Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: Sit down for a minute. I am answering the shadow Secretary of State. As I was saying, more than £150 million was generated from underspends in the departmental central budget in the last three months of the last financial year, and it was spent with local authorities in supporting social care. The rest of the social care support is for 2011-12, so what the right hon. Gentleman said cannot be a reason for the underspend in 2010-11. The amount spent was all in PCT allocations; there was no mechanism by which the Department of Health could go out and ask PCTs to spend less—the money was allocated to them. The shadow Secretary of State shakes his head, but he knows it is true. The money was allocated to the PCTs and they were free to spend the money they had.
	The first reason to reject the motion is that it is a spectacular own goal. The second reason to reject it—

Andy Burnham: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true that PCTs were asked to set aside funds and generate underspends, so may I remind him of a letter sent by the chief executive of the NHS shortly after the White Paper was published, telling primary care trusts to set aside funding for the cost of transition? That is clear; it is in black and white. He did ask PCTs to generate those funds to spend on the costs of his reorganisation.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but that is another spectacular own goal. Both before and after the election, the chief executive of the NHS set aside, as the right hon. Gentleman
	had planned before the election, £1.7 billion for non-recurrent expenditure for the costs of NHS reorganisation. It was done before the election; we never changed the figure. It is not a consequence of any of our plans, but a precise consequence of the right hon. Gentleman’s. He said he accepted the Nicholson challenge, and the £1.7 billion non-recurrent set aside in 2010-11 was to fund that challenge. That was set out before the election, not after it. I thought that one of the benefits of the former Secretary of State coming here to debate matters would be that we would be treated to a bit of knowledge of the NHS and of how it works, but that does not seem to be the case at all.

Grahame Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No, I want to make a bit of progress. Strictly speaking, I have not yet said anything I intended to say.

Grahame Morris: rose —

Paul Farrelly: rose —

Bob Blackman: rose—

Andrew Lansley: The second reason the House should reject the motion is that it fails to pay tribute to the hard-working staff of the NHS. I participated in many debates such as this when I was shadow Secretary of State and I thought that they provided an incredibly good opportunity for Members to raise issues relating to their own constituencies. I hope that that happens in this debate, as it is important. Every one of us has in our constituencies thousands of committed and hard-working NHS staff who want to know that we recognise it. I do not see any of that in the motion.

Joan Ruddock: rose —

Paul Farrelly: rose —

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Andrew Lansley: In this motion, there is nothing to recognise the contribution from NHS staff; it just denigrates them. It says nothing about people who rely on the NHS to care for them.

Paul Farrelly: rose —

Joan Ruddock: rose —

Barbara Keeley: rose —

Andrew Lansley: Next, the motion fails to offer any—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Three Members are trying to catch the Secretary of State’s eye. I am sure that he has noted that and that he will give way, but we cannot have three Members continuously on their feet.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Paul Farrelly: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: It is surprising that I am being embarrassed by so many interventions from the Labour Benches, because there are so few Labour Members here. I remember
	that before the election it was my recurrent experience that when we held Opposition day debates on the NHS, the Labour or Government Benches were nearly empty while our Benches were pretty full of Members who, because of our commitment to the NHS, were seeking to make points about it. Funnily enough, it does not seem to have happened in reverse. The Government Benches are still full while the Opposition Benches are nearly empty.
	[
	Interruption
	.]

Paul Farrelly: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. [ Interruption .]

Paul Farrelly: I thank the Secretary of State. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are too many side comments coming from the Front Benches. Let us carry on with the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need any help.

Paul Farrelly: Staff of the High Street medical practice at Newcastle-under-Lyme are dedicated and hard working, yet that practice, which has 5,000 patients, is being forced to close. The Secretary of State has written me a letter, from which it is quite clear that closing directly run GP practices with salaried doctors is NHS policy. It is also clear that the closures are pre-empting proposed legislation to abolish PCTs, which is yet to go through Parliament. If the Secretary of State believed in a patient-focused NHS, surely he would be trying to save such practices, not encouraging their closure.

Andrew Lansley: I will not delay the House at length with further explanation of what I wrote in my letter, as the hon. Gentleman quite properly raised the matter with me at topical questions. It is our intention to move to more consistent commissioning of primary care across the country through the NHS Commissioning Board, but the driver for that is still local decisions about what GP services should be available in an area and which practices are involved. The hon. Gentleman knows from my letter that this is the view of the local primary care trust. In future, it will be for the health and wellbeing boards, not least the clinical commissioning groups, to look at whether primary medical services can be provided with or without the sort of facilities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Barbara Keeley: The Secretary of State asked for some examples of the impact on constituencies; I can give him two. First, the savings being forced on Salford PCT have led to the shutting of the NHS walk-in centre in one of our most deprived wards, which was serving 2,000 patients a month. Secondly, there is the serious issue of the closedown of active case management for long-term conditions. Patient services in Salford are being downgraded as a result of the savings and cuts that have to be made.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will forgive me for not commenting in detail on that. If my memory serves, that has been the subject of a referral by the local authority to me, which I have sent to the independent reconfiguration panel for initial advice. It would be unhelpful and improper for me to prejudice that.

Andrew Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I will, as I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Andrew Love: A year or 18 months into this Administration, does the right hon. Gentleman regret the announcement he made on the steps of Chase Farm hospital? Does he accept that the four tests have seriously misled local people about the future of the health service in their area? Does he recognise the demoralisation that that has caused in the local health service in Enfield, and what steps will he take to try to recover the situation and move forward?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman also intervened on the shadow Secretary of State. I am afraid that I do not recognise his description. I said before the election that we would have a moratorium on top-down and forced closure programmes affecting A and E and maternity services—and that is exactly what we did. A moratorium means what it says; it provides an opportunity to stop, to take stock and to subject something to the right tests. I set out for the first time the tests that needed to be met—that proposals needed to be consistent with prospective patient choice, consistent with the views of the local community, not least as expressed through the local authority, consistent with the views of the commissioners in the area, especially the developing clinical commissioning groups, and consistent with clinical evidence of safety.
	In the context of Enfield and Chase Farm, the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was a participant in these discussions—that that moratorium was applied, that the opportunity was given to the local authority and the general practice community in Enfield to come forward with alternative solutions. We should also remember that among those four tests is the one about clinical evidence and safety. However, when those community groups came back and said, “We don’t have a specific alternative, but we just don’t want things to change”, I had to ask the independent reconfiguration panel to examine it. Its view was that that was not clinically sustainable.

Andy Burnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I have given way many times. I am answering the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love). It was very clear that we could not proceed on that basis.
	I have another point for the hon. Member for Edmonton about what I found in a number places. Although this was not true of the moratorium in Maidstone and Chase Farm, the moratorium has led to substantially improved outcomes for local services elsewhere, as with Burnley, Solihull, Sidcup, Ealing, the Whittington hospital and other places.

Grahame Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I am still answering a point raised in an earlier intervention. In all those places and others, the moratorium has led to better solutions.

Andy Burnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No. I think that the moratorium has led to a better way forward even in Enfield. It is in the hands of the commissioners and the local authority in Enfield collectively, in Enfield. Within two months I shall receive a report from NHS London advising whether it would be better organisationally for Chase Farm to be combined with North Middlesex rather than Barnet, and I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view on that. We continue to seek not top-down forced reconfigurations, but reconfigurations that consistently meet the four tests, and do so in the best interests of the NHS.

Tony Baldry: The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) implied that my right hon. Friend should have completely ignored the advice of the independent reconfiguration panel. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, there were any occasions on which he sought to ignore the panel’s advice?

Andy Burnham: No.

Tony Baldry: What is the point of having such a panel if it is to be ignored?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Member for Leigh says from a sedentary position that he did not ignore the panel’s advice. I do not believe that a Secretary of State has directly sought to contradict the panel since its establishment, or has sought not to comply with its recommendations. After all, it is there for a reason. The point is that, as I have made clear, the panel should be involved in the application of those four tests, and in the past that has tended not to happen.
	Let me explain why I am asking the House to reject the motion. I believe—and this was always my approach in opposition—that when we table such a motion, we ought at least to be clear about what our alternative solution would be, but there is no such solution in the motion. Let me remind the new, or recycled, shadow Secretary of State what his old friend James Purnell wrote last February:
	“The Tories appear to have the centre ground. Labour need to take it back—by coming out in favour of free schools and GP commissioning”.
	The right hon. Gentleman did not come out in favour of free schools. He now says that he is coming out in favour of GP commissioning. If he believed in GP commissioning, why did he do nothing about it? Why did everyone in the general practice community, throughout the length and breadth of the country, believe that practice-based commissioning had come to a virtual halt? Why did David Colin-Thomé, the right hon. Gentleman’s own national clinical director for primary care, effectively say that it had completely stalled and was not going anywhere?
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with this at one time. Back in 2006, he said of GP commissioning:
	“That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area, so it should give more power to their elbow than they have at present. That is what I would like to see”.—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]
	If the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen, he must support the Bill that will make it happen. The same applies to health improvement and public health leadership in local government, and to our finally arriving at a point when, as was the last Labour Government’s intention, all NHS trusts become foundation trusts. We are going to make those things happen, but in order to do so we must have a legislative structure that supports them. That is evolutionary, not revolutionary. However much the right hon. Gentleman rants about the changes being made in the Bill, the truth is that it will do—in what his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) described as a “consistent, coherent and comprehensive” way—much of what was intended by our predecessors as Secretaries of State under the last Government. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman turned his back on that at the end of his time in office—mainly at the behest of the trade unions, which seem to be the dominant force in Labour politics—does not absolve him of his responsibility to accept that we are now delivering the reforms that he talked about.

Grahame Morris: The Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that there had been no cuts in the NHS budget. Does he recall cancelling the building project for a new hospital serving my constituents in south Easington as part of the comprehensive spending review?

Andrew Lansley: On the occasion when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House that we were supporting a number of hospital projects, we made it clear that the hon. Gentleman’s local trust was a foundation trust. As his colleagues should tell him, the point of a foundation trust is that it should take more responsibility for securing the resources—

Grahame Morris: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. The point of a foundation trust is that it should take more responsibility for securing the resources enabling it to undertake its own building projects. Foundation trusts cannot walk into the Department of Health imagining that they will receive a capital grant of more than £400 million. That is simply not the way it works. It is to the credit of the hon. Gentleman’s local trust that it accepted that, and is working, as a foundation trust, on a better solution for the hon. Gentleman’s area.

Andy Burnham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: No, because I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman many times. Let me tell him this. If he was going to offer to try to work with others on GP commissioning, he ought at least to have demonstrated before the election that he was going to do something about it; and using a transparent political ploy to try and interfere with the passage of the legislation in another place carries no credibility with me or with anyone else. Labour’s tabling of a motion in the other place in an attempt to block the Bill completely showed no willingness to work together, and the fact that it was defeated by 134 votes ought to have given the right hon. Gentleman a reason—and sufficient humility—not to try to return to the subject by tabling today’s motion.
	As I said earlier, I find it regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman’s motion nor his speech made any attempt to deal with what has happened in the NHS over the past year. Let me tell him, and the House—for I know my right hon. and hon. Friends will be interested as well—what has, in truth, happened during that time.
	At the end of the last Labour Government, the average in-patient wait was 8.4 weeks. According to the latest available figures, that has fallen to 8.1 weeks. The average waiting time for out-patients was 4.3 weeks at the time of the last election; it is now 4.1 weeks. Over the last year, the number of MRSA bloodstream infections in hospitals has fallen by a third, and the number of clostridium difficile infections by 16%. Nearly three quarters of a million more people have access to NHS dentistry. Nearly 2 million people have access to the new 111 urgent care service, and the whole country will be covered within the next 18 months. When we came to office, I discovered that there had been talk about a 111 telephone system, but nothing had been done. It is now happening.
	More than 75% of stroke patients now spend 90% or more of their hospital stay in a stroke unit. That is a 20% increase in two years. The Cancer Drugs Fund has given more than 5,000 patients access to drugs that they desperately need, and which under the last Government’s regime would not have been available to them. We have embarked on an £800 million investment in translational research, increasing our financial support for it by 30%, to help to secure the United Kingdom as a world leader in health research.
	The NHS is leading the way in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, with 86% of patients receiving an assessment for the condition. I believe that that constitutes an increase of some 30% in the last year. The bowel cancer screening programme is enabling many more patients and members of the public to be screened, there is more screening for diabetic retinopathy than ever before, and there were 188,000 more diagnostic tests in the three months to August than there were last year. Pathfinder clinical commissioning groups have been established virtually through England, and there are 138 health and wellbeing boards in local authorities, meeting and putting together their strategies to deliver population health gain across their areas.
	In a single year, the year preceding the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh presided over a 32% increase in NHS management costs. That was the year after the banks had gone bust. It was the year when it was obvious that Government deficits were out of control. It was the year when the debt crisis was just about to crash over the whole of the public sector. What happened on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? There was a 23% increase in management costs in a single year, to £350 million. In the year that followed, we reduced those costs to £329 million.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Secretary of State tell us what the percentage of senior managers is, and how that compares with the percentage in the private sector?

Andrew Lansley: Does the hon. Lady act as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Secretary of State? Ah, she does. Well, she has the merit of consistency. I am reminded that in June 2006, when for a short period she
	was chair—I think—of Rochdale primary care trust, she resigned. She said that she resigned because the radical changes happening under the then Labour Government in 2006 would
	“destroy the NHS as we know it.”
	The hon. Lady has the merit of being consistent: she is against every Government and every change. She does not think that any steps will make the NHS into what it ought to be. I will not take any lectures from her, therefore.
	I was explaining to the hon. Lady and the House what has been achieved. We have stripped out pointless bureaucracy. The number of managers more than doubled under Labour, but we have cut their number by more than 5,000, and we have increased the number of doctors in the NHS by more than 1,500. The Bill includes measures to abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, but in the meantime we have clustered PCTs and SHAs together.
	We are reducing the cost of bureaucracy in the NHS not only because it is necessary to do so. The transfer to clinically-led commissioning in the NHS, for which there is a very good case of course, also involves reducing such costs. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has frequently made clear, as part of the transfer process we will deliver £4.5 billion in savings in administration costs this year across the national health service. The transition itself involves costs of course, but they will be recovered by the end of 2012-13, and by the end of the Parliament we will have gone on to save more than £4.5 billion in total.

Christopher Leslie: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: No.
	Productivity fell in every single year that Labour was in charge of the NHS. However, according to the Audit Commission, in the last year—2010-11—we saved £4.3 billion. As the deputy chief executive of the NHS has reported, PCTs are intending to save a further £5.9 billion in 2011-12. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leigh repeatedly said, the NHS is not failing to deliver on the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention challenge; it is on target to meet that challenge. The modernisation that is at the heart of the Bill and the White Paper is not about frustrating the NHS in that endeavour; it is about enabling it to meet the QIPP challenge.
	Last summer, I announced that we would be measuring mixed-sex accommodation and then driving down the extent to which patients were put in such accommodation when they should not have been. The right hon. Gentleman said at the time:
	“This hollow announcement is an attempt by Mr Lansley to claim credit for something Labour has done”.
	That is absolutely wrong. The evidence showed that almost 150,000 patients a year were being placed in mixed-sex accommodation in breach of the rules. We ensured that figures were published for the very first time. The first set of results was published in December, and it showed that in that month alone there were well over 11,000 such patients. Since then, there has been a
	91% reduction in the number of patients put into mixed-sex accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to see issues of care, service and standards in the NHS covered up. We are determined to shine a light on where the NHS can, and should, improve its performance; we are determined to enable the NHS to do so and to challenge it wherever it is not doing so.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
	If the public want to know how the NHS in England would have fared under Labour since the last general election, they should look across the border at what has happened in Wales—I am not sure whether any Members representing Welsh constituencies are present. We are protecting the NHS and increasing its budget in real terms. However, I have brought along to the Chamber a report by the Auditor General for Wales that was published just a few days ago, on 14 October 2011. If I could, I would enter it in evidence, but I can at least hold it up in order to show Members a series of bar charts. They demonstrate that in England there is real-terms growth in the NHS, in Northern Ireland there is small real-terms growth that is unevenly distributed across the years, in Scotland there is tiny real-terms growth, and in Wales there is a large downward curve, which shows the reduction in real-terms spending on the NHS in Wales. Wales is the only part of the UK that is run by Labour, and there are real-terms cuts in the NHS budget there.

Christopher Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman must know that “real terms” means taking account of inflation. For the record, can he tell the House what the retail prices index was for the last month for which figures are available? That will give us a sense of what “real terms” ought to mean in this context.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is a shadow Treasury Minister, so he must know that the expression “real terms” has consistently been used in relation to the GDP deflator, which is independently estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That is the basis on which we do these calculations, so the Wales Audit Office will have calculated the real-terms changes in budgets in each of the countries of the United Kingdom on that basis. John Appleby from the King’s Fund has estimated an 8.3% real-terms cut in the NHS budget in Labour Wales.

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is, justifiably, giving a robust performance. He said that his job is to shine a light into the NHS to make sure there is a better service for patients. Can he assure us that the recent findings about the care of the elderly in our hospitals and the recommendations of the Cavendish report on that issue will receive the Department’s full attention, as that is one of the areas where the NHS often fails to fulfil the expectations of patients and their families?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk with Camilla Cavendish and to read much of what she has written.
	In January, I asked the Care Quality Commission to undertake dignity and nutrition inspections. They were nurse-led, unannounced inspections across NHS hospitals.
	The reasons for doing so were clear. I do not say this to denigrate the NHS, but many of us were concerned about two issues. First, although patients admitted to hospitals might get very good clinical care, the standards of personal care were often not as good as they should be, and they were seriously deficient in some cases. Secondly, the last Labour Government had star ratings for hospitals, the net effect of which was as follows. On the Healthcare Commission website, there would be a green dot against a hospital, which was often taken to mean, “This hospital is fine.” However, we all knew that some hospitals had tremendous reputations and world-beating clinical care in some respects and some wards where care was fantastic, but that care in neighbouring wards could be seriously deficient. The dignity and nutrition inspections have addressed that.
	The CQC will follow up wherever it has found concerns. In addition, it will undertake similar unannounced inspections of learning disability services and there will be 500 unannounced inspections of care homes, to seek out and expose poor performance or poor care in those areas—and, I hope, demonstrate where good care is provided. There will be an additional follow-up inspection of a further 50 NHS hospitals.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. May I raise a linked point? One of the issues most frequently raised with me both in my constituency and elsewhere is that families and patients often do not feel that they have consistent contact with just one person who is responsible for the management of the care in a hospital. Instead, there is a range of people whom they do not know, except for what is printed on their name badges. They know the consultant, but they do not know who is responsible on a day-to-day basis for the delivery of 24-hour care. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that is also on his agenda?

Andrew Lansley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is not only the case in hospitals, where people can sometimes ask, “Under whose care is my husband?” It is also especially true in community care. I hope that there will be more integrated services in the community, but although there may be a range of providers, there must be an integrated service with a clear line of accountability.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Lansley: No, as I need to conclude my speech. [Interruption.] I am sure what the hon. Lady says is true.
	The NHS in Wales is not cutting its budget because everything is going well. Labour Members are fond of citing waiting times, but the latest figures on waiting times show that in England 90.4% of admitted patients and 97.3% of non-admitted patients were referred to treatment within 18 weeks, whereas the figures for Wales are 67.6% and only 74% respectively.
	Let me tell the House about infection rates. In 2007, the clostridium difficile mortality rates in England and Wales were similar—in fact, the rate was slightly higher in England. However, in the latest year for which figures are available there were 23.4 deaths per million for men and 23.5 deaths per million for women in England, whereas the figures for Wales were 54.9 deaths per million for men and 59.5 deaths per million for women, so the level in Wales is more than twice that in England.
	In four years, the gap has widened to the point where Wales has double the number of deaths from C. diff infections relative to England. Less money, less innovation and less good care is what has been happening in Wales under a Labour Government.
	I must make it clear that we are going to put patients at the heart of the NHS. We are going to focus on the NHS delivering excellent care every time. Labour focused on the targets and the averages, and never got to the place of really caring about the specifics. A patient about to go into hospital for knee replacement surgery does not want to know about the national figure; they want to know about their hospital, their ward and what will happen to them. The same is true for mixed-sex accommodation. Labour turned a blind eye to variation in performance. We are going to open it up to clinical and public scrutiny, so that we can reward and celebrate achievement and excellence across the service, and shine a light on poor performance.

Joan Ruddock: Two weeks ago, I had an operation in Guy’s hospital. Because of possible complications, I had to ask my consultant directly, “Would you advise me to go ahead or not?” He advised me to do so, and I had complete trust in him. He was not thinking about whether he had to fulfil a quota, whether there was competitiveness in his hospital or his department, or whether a private patient would be preferred in the bed that I was to occupy. He was someone I could trust. In the health service that the Secretary of State proposes in his Bill, I could never have that confidence. I ask him please to abandon this Bill.

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Lady is simply wrong. There is nothing in the legislation that will do anything other than support clinicians to exercise their judgments in order to deliver the best care for their patients. It was under her Government, when people were told to pursue 18-week targets, that managers were literally walking in to speak to consultants who were about to do waiting lists and surgery lists and telling them that, because of the 18-week target, they had to treat a certain patient rather than another whose interests would mean that they would be seen first. So I will not take any lectures about that. We are going to put clinicians at the heart of delivering care and put patients at the heart of the service that is delivered.
	The Labour motion does not reflect reality. It is based on a misleading set of interpretations and representations. Labour Members have a very short memory, but I am afraid that they have left us a shocking legacy. The motion contains no appreciation of the challenges the NHS faces, no appreciation of the care the NHS has provided to patients day in, day out over the past year, and no vision of how the NHS can be better in the future. Modernisation of the NHS will deliver an NHS that we can rely on for future generations, that is based on need, not ability to pay, and that is able to deliver the best outcomes for patients. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Just before I call the next speaker, I suggest that we have an eight-minute limit. I want to get all the speakers in, as I do not want anyone to be disappointed.

Grahame Morris: Although the words “shocking legacy” are ringing in my ears, I find it difficult to believe them, given Labour’s legacy on the NHS compared with what it inherited in 1997. Expenditure was increased from £30 billion in 1997 to £103 billion when we left office, and we had record patient satisfaction ratings. It beggars belief that that can be considered a shocking legacy.

Gareth Johnson: rose—

Grahame Morris: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue my introduction and give way in a moment.
	I wish to recognise the contribution of the NHS staff, who are the source of great pride. They have done such a great job, and continue to do so, even in difficult circumstances, in delivering the very high levels of patient satisfaction reported in the recent surveys.
	In November 2010, the Backbench Business Committee selected my application for a debate on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health, the NHS and public health. So many of the issues that have been raised are implanted in my mind, not least the loss of the funding for a new hospital that would have served many of my constituents in the south of Easington. I am concerned about the particular reference that has been made to that and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister would deal with that in their closing remarks. A value-for-money assessment was made by both the Department of Health and the Treasury and it was found that the best way to take forward that proposal was with public funding, rather than through the private finance initiative route. The disingenuous position repeated by those on the Government Benches, including the charges laid against the Labour Opposition about our support for PFI, has been compounded. I remind right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches that in the case of the new hospital planned for my area we were directed to the PFI route, despite the criticism that has come from the Secretary of State and other Members on the Government Benches.
	I am pleased that the motion focuses on the failed personal pledges of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. A key promise was made to increase real-terms expenditure on the NHS, but it is another broken promise. It is probably the most fundamental one, as the NHS is such a beloved institution of the whole British public. Before the election, the Conservatives promised to protect the NHS and give it a real-terms budget increase year on year. The coalition document promised a 0.4% real-terms budget increase for the NHS over the spending review period.
	I am sure that we all saw the expensive billboards before the election, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred. They showed the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, saying:
	“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”
	That was not really about rebranding the NHS; it was more an exercise in conning the British public. Whereas Labour gave a guarantee to protect the front line of the NHS, the Health Secretary, then the shadow Health
	Secretary, saw a cynical opportunity to give a guarantee on spending. We now know from the Treasury’s own figures that that guarantee was false: it is a promise that has been broken. It was a guarantee that went against all the Tory mantra. We are constantly told by the Conservative party that public service delivery is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it—in fact, we heard that today from the Prime Minister in relation to police numbers. However, the Tory promise was never about protecting the NHS; it was about protecting the Tory brand.
	Even the Tories’ biggest backers realise that the promise to increase funding on the NHS was a con. The Secretary of State cited James Purnell a little earlier, so perhaps I might cite Fraser Nelson, who is not a well-known socialist—he writes for The Spectator and is a right-wing commentator. He says:
	“It has become clear now that there was a cynical competition to dupe the British public into believing that if they voted Tory at the General Election, the NHS would be safe.”
	After 13 years of unprecedented rises in the NHS budget under Labour, and efficiency measures such as those on procurement—

Henry Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the 13 years under the previous Labour Government. I do not know what happened in his constituency, but my constituency lost accident and emergency provision, and we lost maternity provision. That was the direct consequence of Labour’s Department of Health.

Grahame Morris: I think we saw an unprecedented period of growth with the building of new hospitals and new facilities. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and what he is going through with the Chase Farm downgrading, because in my area the Hartlepool accident and emergency facility is also being downgraded to an urgent treatment centre. That is a cause of consternation among the public.

Andrew Lansley: That was a Labour plan.

Grahame Morris: Well, it is being done under the Secretary of State’s Administration when an impression was given that there would be a moratorium and that we would not face such downgrading and closures. That was clearly a con that was sold to the public, so I do not accept the contention that the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has put forward.
	Let me press on, because time is limited. The NHS is hurting under this Government and these reckless reforms. On the promises for a real-terms increase, we know that health inflation has surged and that the spending power of the NHS is going down, so will the Minister now admit that the NHS is receiving a real-terms cut? This is not just about the NHS being held hostage to inflation. It is facing real financial pressures on the front line—which Labour promised to protect—for a number of reasons including the Government’s decision to push through this latest reorganisation, which is the biggest the NHS has ever faced, at the same time as pushing through £20 billion-worth of efficiency savings. The figure of £1 billion a year is being taken from the NHS’s existing budgets to meet the growing and ever-increasing costs of social care. The Select Committee on Health is now looking into that issue and I hope that we are able to come forward with some positive ideas that the Minister will consider.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend heard the Secretary of State’s responses to my questions. I know that my hon. Friend served on the Committee considering the Health and Social Care Bill. Will he confirm that competitiveness is still at the heart of that Bill and that the cap on private patients in the NHS is being removed from hospitals?

Grahame Morris: I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend and I should like to place on record, because the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to do so, that the cap on private patient work, which had been set at 5%, is to be raised by the Bill. That must have a detrimental impact on the NHS in general, and on non-private patients, as resources are directed to the private sector and private patients.

Daniel Poulter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Grahame Morris: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I do not think I will get any injury time if I do so and I have rather a lot to get through.
	I have mentioned the transfer of resources from the NHS budget to meet the growing costs of social care. We have also discovered, from evidence that was given to the Select Committee, that there has been an underspend of almost £2 billion—much of it from the capital budget, with some of it, presumably, being saved by cancelling the new hospital that was to serve my area. Meanwhile many NHS trusts are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, and figures produced by the Department of Health show that six large NHS trusts in London are predicting year-end deficits of £170 million. The pressures on the system are enormous and will inevitably show through in reductions in services, having an impact on the front line.
	The reductions in tariffs for operations and the further pressures in that area will also mean that foundation and NHS acute trusts will bear the brunt of financial pressures within the system. Again, that means that the buck and the spotlight of transparency are being passed away from the Secretary of State to the NHS commissioning board, although he might have to reconsider that after last night’s Lords amendments.
	Another area of pressure in the NHS comes from the huge redundancy costs being incurred as a consequence of the premature closure of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which is estimated to cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion. The opening up of the NHS entirely to the private sector, and the prospect of the £103 billion NHS budget being taken out of the public sector and placed within the remit of shareholders in private health care companies, is anathema to the majority of the British public. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is cringing, but the majority of the British public are cringing at the thought of this proposal.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Chris Skidmore: It is remarkable that we are having this debate today. As the Secretary of State has said, the Opposition’s motion is a remarkable
	own goal, especially as it has been confirmed that the Government will be increasing funds in real terms by 0.4% over the course of this Parliament. The shadow Secretary of State is shaking his head, but that will mean an extra £12.5 billion, which he has opposed today. It also remarkable that we have had confirmation from him of his comments in
	The Guardian
	on 16 June 2010, when he stated:
	“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope”.
	He agreed with that and I am delighted that he has put that on the record now that he has a second bite of the cherry, as the shadow Secretary of State for Health. He had an opportunity to make amends, and I thought he would, but unfortunately he has not. He also stated in the New Statesman on 22 July 2010:
	“They’re not ring-fencing it. They’re increasing it.”
	He was talking about the NHS budget and the fact that the Government were increasing it.
	We have heard from the Secretary of State today that if there is an underspend, it has come entirely from the central departmental budgets. What is wrong with that? Does the shadow Secretary of State disagree that we might have cut down on costs such as the £115,759 he spent on a personal chauffeur during his time as Secretary of State? Does he oppose an underspend, given that during his time at the Department it spent £3.65 million on almost 26,000 first-class rail tickets? We have slashed that cost by more than 70%. Does he deny that he and the Department spent £1.7 million on luxury hotels during his time there? What is wrong with cutting such spending? What is wrong with the fact that Ministers are no longer using hotels such as the Hotel President Wilson in Geneva as they did in 2008 when the bill was £548.87 a night? If we are making those cuts to the central budget, I quite welcome our doing so.

Barbara Keeley: I wonder that the hon. Gentleman is not more worried about issues such as those I raised earlier. The real cuts being experienced in my constituency are in NHS walk-in centres and in the active management of long-term conditions. That is a real downgrading of patient care. I am surprised that he is bringing up these expenses; I think he should focus on what is happening in the NHS.

Chris Skidmore: I entirely agree that we need to integrate better social care in the NHS, and part of the reason why we have £2 billion going into social care is to tackle that problem. It is interesting that the hon. Lady does not deny that those spends have happened and that she does not apologise for the fact that the previous Government made those spends. Personally, I think they are a disgrace. Obviously, Opposition Members do not have a problem with spending £600 on a hotel in Switzerland, but I do. I say to the shadow Secretary of State, “Don’t build a greenhouse and then throw stones out of it.” Let us remember that it was the Labour party that gave us an NHS IT system at a cost of £12.7 billion—450% more than the original cost. It was the Labour party that gave us private finance initiative deals that were so badly drafted that they were worth £11.4 billion but cost £65 billion to pay off. What did the shadow Secretary of State say when he was the Secretary of State?

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that my intervention allows him to cool his jets a little. One cannot make a case about this by arguing about minutiae. Will he accept that for many of us the reality of the NHS is what we see at Central Middlesex hospital, where somebody turns up on a Monday to be told that the accident and emergency department closed on the previous Friday and has now been rebranded without there having been any democratic input? If one has any complaints about that, however, one should not even bother trying to find a person to speak to. That is the reality. The NHS is over-commercialised and is losing touch with its roots.

Chris Skidmore: The hon. Gentleman will regret his comments. We have to pay back £65 billion on PFI deals that were originally signed for £11 billion—that ain’t minutiae. Many constituents are concerned about the waste that took place under the previous Government.
	In 1997, there were 23,400 managers. That has gone up to 42,500. We are making a genuine attempt to tackle the problem. I could go on, but I will put the party politics aside.

Grahame Morris: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the National Audit Office report in relation to savings that could be made from NHS procurement? Does he think that fragmenting the NHS will assist that or hinder it?

Chris Skidmore: We are spending £1 billion more than we should on procurement because of the lack of consistency across the NHS, delivered principally by the previous Government. That is one area in which we could make vital savings. The NHS needs to change. Your boss, Ed Miliband, said:
	“To protect the NHS is to change it”
	and we need to do so. The reforms that we are bringing in are essential if we are to deliver savings and also to ensure that the NHS survives when our ageing population means there will be twice as many 85-year-olds by 2030.
	We need to reform the NHS and we do so in the spirit of what Tony Blair and new Labour put forward. Julian Le Grand, Tony Blair’s key adviser, said that the reforms were
	“evolutionary, not revolutionary: a logical, sensible extension of those put in place by Tony Blair”.
	When I asked him in the Health Committee whether this is what Blair would have done, he said: “Absolutely. Blair ‘would have tried’ to get these reforms through, but I imagine the left of his party may have prevented him from doing so.”

Joan Ruddock: How does the hon. Gentleman square his enthusiasm for all these reforms with the Prime Minister’s statement that there would be no top-down reforms of the NHS?

Chris Skidmore: We are introducing these reforms principally so that we put power back in the hands of GPs and, above all, patients. We are making these reforms because we have to. The status quo cannot remain—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady wants the NHS to continue as it is, fine. If the NHS is to be free at the point of delivery, it needs clinician-led commissioning. That is what we are going to achieve.

Sarah Newton: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that on such an important subject as the NHS, the people we represent and who sent us here would expect us to be thinking about how we can improve the NHS for patients and for the people who work in it, rather than engaging in this ridiculous tit-for-tat party political scrap that we are seeing this afternoon?

Chris Skidmore: I entirely agree. A constituent, a lady who sadly lost her foot through a rare cancer, came to my surgery recently. She is allowed only one type of plastic foot from the NHS and the PCT. She wants what is called an Echelon foot which will allow her to walk up a hill—she is a hill walker—but under the current model she cannot get that alternative foot. By bringing in any qualified provider, we will allow patients and clinicians the freedom to choose for the first time—a choice that was denied under the “any preferred provider” model that the shadow Secretary of State still clings to vainly. We need to ensure that our NHS operates for the 21st century and I hope the reforms will deliver that.
	To sum up, I will oppose the motion. It is juvenile—the text could have been written by Adrian Mole. This is about getting away from the politics of debate in the Chamber and giving the NHS back to the professionals and the patients. It is not our NHS; it is their NHS, and we need to ensure that we achieve that aim.

Rosie Cooper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Health, a brief to which he brings valuable experience. We are going to need every bit of that experience, given what the current Secretary of State is doing to bring the NHS to its knees.
	I strongly disagree with my colleague on the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). This is not their NHS. This is not your or my NHS. It belongs to the people, all of us. We all have an incredible stake in the NHS. The Secretary of State and the Government play with it, with their reputation and with patients’ needs at their peril. I believe your policy will fundamentally damage the NHS—

Nigel Evans: Order. May I remind the House not to use the word “you”? Members speak through the Chair and should use the third person, please.

Rosie Cooper: Forgive me. I have a great propensity to do that. I believe passionately in the NHS and I take this all very personally. I apologise.
	The Government’s policy will fundamentally damage the health service in terms of both the quality of care available to patients and the founding principles of the NHS. The more we debate Government health policy, the less the Secretary of State seems to be listening, whether to Opposition Members, medical professionals, patients, patient groups or constituents.
	I might go further and say that I now believe the Secretary of State occupies a parallel universe—a universe where everyone wholeheartedly supports his policy and believes him when he says that there is real-terms growth
	in NHS spending, a universe where waiting times are not increasing, people are not being refused treatments, bed-blocking is not happening because of pressure on the social care system, a universe where he never discussed the issue of re-banding of nurses with the Royal College of Nursing.
	Unfortunately, while the Secretary of State, ably supported by the Prime Minister, is off in that parallel universe, which we shall call delusional, the rest of us are left facing the terrifying reality of what the Government’s policy means to our constituents and to the national health service. We must disregard the rhetoric and the myth-making of the Conservative party as it seeks to demonstrate that it has changed when it comes to the NHS. Sadly for the health service, the Conservatives have not changed at all.
	I have spoken repeatedly about the Prime Minister’s clear promises to the British people—one was that there would be no more pointless top-down reorganisation. He even said:
	“When your family relies on the NHS all the time—day after day, night after night—you know how precious it is”.
	How quickly those words were forgotten. Michael Portillo comments on the BBC’s “This Week” spoke volumes. He could not have made it clearer that the Government meant to misrepresent their position and mislead their voters. He said:
	“They did not believe they could win if they told you what they were going to do.”
	My fear is that their broken promises are leading us headlong into a broken NHS.
	There is much I could say about how disgracefully the Government started to change NHS structures without the consent of the people or the House. Because of those broken promises, a failure to secure a clear mandate for the reforms from the British public, and an abject failure to secure support from the clinicians and the medical profession, we are left in the present mess. I hear time and again that the doctors, the nurses and the professionals are all behind the Government. Where are they? They are shouting loud and clear, “We’re not with you.”

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosie Cooper: I fell for that last time and did not get to the end of what I had to say.
	I will not go on about the rest of the problems that I see with the Bill—the financial challenge, the fact that we are open to European competition regulation, or the fact that the chair of the National Commissioning Board believes the Bill is unintelligible. I believe the Bill has been driven forward as an ideological exercise, rather than by an ideological desire to improve the quality of health care available.

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Rosie Cooper: Forgive me; I need to get to the end of my speech.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh dealt with the finances and the myth of real-terms growth in the NHS budget. My local trust is being asked to go beyond the 4% savings compounded over the next four years and will be expected to achieve 6% or £8.5 million in this financial year. On top of that, Monitor expects trusts to make a 1% profit. People who have given
	evidence to the Select Committee have said it is clear that there will need to be hospital closures in order to release money back into the wider health service. We are told that this is all part of managing demand and redesigning pathways—two horrible phrases that appear to be back in vogue.
	I want to deal quickly with the re-banding of nurses to reduce budgets, which the Health Secretary appears to have little understanding of. I am sorry he is no longer in his place. He clearly told the Health Committee that he was unaware that re-banding was taking place. His problem is that Janet Davies from the Royal College of Nursing told the Committee that, although the RCN does not release conversations, that issue was clearly discussed. I really worry about that. Does he have a twin he is sending into meetings on his behalf? Does he simply not listen? It would not be the first time. Or is the truth even worse, and should he be described in terms that Mr Speaker would call unparliamentary? The Secretary of State said earlier that he stood by his answers to the Committee. He has also claimed that he did not receive a letter from me, but I can confirm that he received it at 11.57 on 13 October, and I have confirmation from his office.

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosie Cooper: I will not.
	The point is that even if the Secretary of State was not aware of the re-banding, as he claims, that speaks volumes about how out of touch he is with the hard-working staff he is supposed to represent. Perhaps he would like to remove himself from his parallel universe—

Nigel Evans: Order. I call John Pugh.

John Pugh: May I take it as read that the NHS will struggle to find the £20 billion savings agreed in the Labour Budget? May I take it as read that that will impact on services and that people will notice and probably blame this Government’s legislation regardless of whether or not it compounds the problem? The debate we have been having on how NHS spending is or is not to be ring-fenced is almost a sideshow, compared with the huge challenge that is consistently emphasised by the Chairman of the Health Committee.
	I draw Members’ attention to the fact that serious financial trouble is already breaking out in the acute sector. Seven of the 19 foundation trusts in the north-west have a red light, and that region is one of the more stable ones that we could consider. I cannot see any obvious happy endings, even without the Bill. Without the Bill we would still have competition by price, competition law would still be applicable, PCTs would still be capable of looking for the lowest common denominator and we would still have an unaccountable NHS.
	To add to the general misery I am trying to perpetuate, on Saturday I had a severe abscess on my tooth, which was extraordinarily painful and unpleasant. After taking large doses of ibuprofen, which gave me a little relief for an hour, and my face being swollen and peculiar—a little more peculiar than it currently is—I sat up in bed in the middle of the night with my iPad looking up home remedies on the internet—cloves, bicarbonate of soda and so on. I found forums populated by desperate
	sufferers looking for a fix. What surprised me most were the American contributors, a considerable number of whom were obviously afraid to go to a dentist, despite the fact that the US is a rich country with no shortage of good dentists. They were settling for severe and continuous pain or for hit-and-miss experimentation, rather than risking debt and bankruptcy. Thankfully, I was in the UK and we have the NHS. On Sunday night, almost unbelievably, I was seen at 6.15 by an emergency dentist, a Polish dentist at the former Litherland town hall, which is now a busy Sefton NHS walk-in centre with a pharmacy attached—a service I did not know existed prior to these events.
	Thankfully, the NHS is an institution built on solidarity. Through the state, we guarantee by our taxes each other treatment according to need and irrespective of means. It is a moral compact and Governments have been prepared to carry out that compact by ensuring that the services that are needed exist. Historically, they have done this in two ways: first, by buying services on our behalf; and secondly by providing services directly on our behalf. Governments and the people working in the NHS have done this relatively well and relatively efficiently, as the Wanless report and the Commonwealth Fund report have rigorously and exhaustively demonstrated. That is indisputable.
	What is strange about recent developments is the Government shying away from their role as a provider of health care. The original debate was over the renouncing of the Secretary of State’s role as a provider, but we can also see the cutting loose of all hospitals as free-standing foundation trusts; the blurring of boundaries between NHS providers and other sorts of providers, with NHS providers doing more private work and the private sector doing more public work; the forcing—genuine forcing in some places—of non-hospital staff working for the NHS to become independent social enterprises; the neutrality of the Department for Health on whether individual NHS providers or provider networks survive, a neutrality that will be severely tested in the months to come; and the willingness to make NHS provision contestable as a matter of principle, rather than one of pragmatism. Not many people have noticed the ending of the Secretary of State’s powers to create a new foundation trust or hospital post-2015. We might have seen the last new NHS hospital opened by a Secretary of State in this country.
	I found the Secretary of State’s unwillingness to stick to the wording of the Health Act 2006 slightly bizarre, if only because that would easily have brought peace, and may have brought peace now, depending on what exactly has happened in the House of Lords. In a sense, we all know that the Secretary of State does not, has not and cannot provide all the services himself and should not try to micro-manage. I did not seriously expect him to turn up at Litherland town hall on Sunday—visions of Marathon Man come before me. What concerns me is the ideological presumption that the Secretary of State should only be a purchaser or commissioner. There is a good reason for that concern; it is only possible to purchase in a market what that market offers. Markets are splendid things, offering choice and variety, but they do not have a guarantee that people will get what they are entitled to, and they do not ensure that health inequalities, or any sort of inequality, can be eroded,
	and they do not guarantee that public resources are spent and used in the most efficient way. They may lead to that, but not necessarily. Direct state provision is often a better option.

Therese Coffey: I respect my hon. Friend’s point of view, but surely what matters is quality of care for patients, which can be provided as well in the private sector as it can in the public sector, and it is not necessarily guaranteed in the public sector, as events at the Mid Staffordshire hospital have shown.

John Pugh: I did not say that it was guaranteed by the public sector. That is not the point I was making at all. Guaranteeing entitlement, addressing inequalities and ensuring public value are, to be blunt, largely the point of the NHS. I can quite understand—I partly regret it—that a degree of cynicism might exist about the public service ethos, and a sort of nostalgic support for that can sometimes be in place when the reality is that it is not there. There is doubt about its true impact and people inside and outside the NHS sometimes show that degree of cynicism, which is regrettable. I can understand the worry that NHS providers can become lax or inefficient or unambitious if they are not challenged, but the answer to that is not necessarily or obviously to get out of the provision business full stop, embrace the market, set up strange control markets with huge transactional costs, strange tariffs and the multiplicity of bean counters that go along with that. Of course there is also greater legal complexity. The end result of that is something that has few of the virtues of a real market and most of the vices. The Labour Government were to some extent part and parcel of producing such a market. I see no reason to make the state just a purchaser and never a provider, and it is not obvious to me that the answer is to hand over the money to one set of providers, the GPs, particularly if the pretext for doing so is to harden the commissioner-provider split, because GPs are providers.
	In conclusion, publicly funded provision—public service infused with the right ethos—is often the most efficient and effective option, provided that it is coupled with genuine, local and rigorous accountability. That is what happens in many successful systems, such as Sweden’s, and it is a liberal solution. So far, there is not enough of it, although the Bill makes laudable moves in that direction, with health and wellbeing boards and so on, but this strange, unargued and ideological withdrawal from provision or interest in provision taints everything and leaks poison into the system—like an abscess.

Kevin Barron: I support the motion on the Order Paper this afternoon, and I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has left his seat, because he was coming out with a load of reasons why the NHS is in the mess it is in now, saying that it was to do with the previous Labour Government. He mentioned Adrian Mole, but I would have advised him not to use such arguments when, in the same breath, he was talking about the money that was spent on the NHS IT programme. It was nowhere near the £12 billion that he mentioned. People would be wise to look at the IT system, because it was ambitious in terms of creating a national database, and given my experience on the Health Committee that
	looked at the issue in the previous Parliament, I must say that if we want to make the national health service efficient, we will do so with IT. Currently, there are few programmes that manage people with long-term conditions, yet they consume between 75% and 80% of the moneys spent on the NHS, so batting arguments around on that basis, as the current Government did in opposition in relation to IT will not make health care better or the national health service more efficient for people in this country.
	Members have mentioned three issues with the coalition agreement. I am going to leave the one on finance as it stands, because there is an argument about the Treasury figures. We will see in the next year or two, if the next election is in 2015, exactly where the issue goes, and then we will be able to comment a little more than we are able to at the moment.
	On moratoriums, I saw a very embarrassed Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, and I am going to be consistent, because when I was Chair of the Health Committee and sitting on the Government Benches, I criticised on two occasions then Government Front Benchers for such stunts. I did not criticise Health Ministers, but I did make one criticism in a closed place, after a Secretary of State—not for Health, but a Scottish Member who no longer sits in the House—stood on the picket line against the closure of a hospital in Scotland near his constituency.
	Another criticism I made was of a Member—who is still in the House but, again, not a Health Minister—who was against changes to health care in Greater Manchester. I was asked by the media—I think it was the BBC—and I said that, if the issue is being looked at locally and it is recommended that such reconfiguration will improve patient services, it should go ahead and politicians should not speak out against it. I then received the quickest response I have ever had on any issue from No 10 Downing street, but I stick to what I said then: the matter had been looked at locally.
	I listened to the Secretary of State—I am sorry he is not in his place now—when he talked about stopping top-down decision making and letting local commissioners have a look at the clinical evidence and safety aspects, but the independent review panel has been looking at those matters for years. The interference of people at the top has been the real issue.
	Politicians have to get away from the idea that they must defend the national health service in its current configuration at all costs. That will not improve it—[ Interruption. ] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) laughs, but I am talking to him, and to the Secretary of State who stood holding up placards saying things would not happen which have happened. We should not do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has the image of that in his hand, but this is a lesson for all people in politics.
	When the Health Committee in the previous Parliament looked at NHS deficits, it found that many years ago the major problem with deficits was in the east of England, because many small parts of the NHS were spread around marginal seats that had been fought for one way or another over the previous 20 or 30 years. That level of political interference does nothing for patient care. I am being even-handed in saying that, and I genuinely believe it.
	I am going to move on from moratoriums. Ministers put well their arguments on those issues when they were in opposition, but now, given the decisions they are having to take in government, they are having to eat humble pie. It serves them right, as it served the last lot right.
	I want to go on to the coalition agreement’s statement that there will be no top-down reorganisation in the national health service, because this current reorganisation is the worst, the biggest and the most savage. It has been defended again today on the basis, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, that GPs are going to be in charge, but they are going to get about £80 billion, and they are small, private, independent contractors, so the idea that there will not be any conflict of interest in some of the work that is going to take place is nonsense. It will be a matter for the courts.
	I was also amazed when the hon. Gentleman said that we have competition now inside the national health service, because we do not in clinical services, and he will have to explain why there are 97 clauses in the Health and Social Care Bill which put competition law in clinical services on to the statue book of this land. Can somebody find me one country in the European Union which has competition law in clinical services? I have found none.
	I sat on the Public Bill Committee for six months, and, on Third Reading, I asked the Minister who will make the winding-up speech today—I will ask him again, because I have to sit down in a couple of minutes—what the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading had got to do with the merger of national health service trusts. That provision is written into the Bill, and it was not changed when the future forum looked at it; indeed, of the 97 clauses, only seven were changed. The Minister has not answered that question, and I asked Professor Steve Field when he went back to the Public Bill Committee what that had to do with the merger of NHS trusts.
	I ask the Minister to answer this question when he winds up the debate. What have the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission got to do with the merger of national health service trusts? I await the answer. I am fed up of asking the question.
	The Secretary of State says, “We’re abolishing PCTs,” and indeed we are, but what PCTs do will be taken over by not one body but five different ones: clinical commissioning groups, health and wellbeing boards, clinical senates, the NHS Commissioning Board and local authorities—and that is how we get rid of bureaucracy! That is what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box just a while ago, but five different organisations—some of them new—are going to be involved.
	This is the biggest mistake that any Government have made with the NHS since it was brought in 60 years ago, and this Government would be well advised to take the Bill away and get on with serving the nation’s health care needs, not bringing in this competition law, which will be the end of the NHS as we know it.

Daniel Poulter: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). He would be surprised if I agreed with everything he said, but he made some good points in the first half of his speech.
	Today’s debate has been a wasted opportunity for the Opposition, because nothing positive has come out of it—nothing about how we will better look after patients or how we will address very real needs in all our constituencies. There has been a lot of mud-slinging but very little talk about what will benefit patients and how we will deliver a patient-centred NHS.
	That is to the detriment of the Opposition and to the way in which they have addressed the motion. It is disingenuous of Opposition Members to attack the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, and to try to give the impression that my right hon. Friends do not care about the NHS. All politicians and, I believe, everyone in the country care about the NHS, but we have slightly different views about how the service should be run.
	I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and I like her very much on a personal level, but some of her points were wrong. In particular, it was wrong to bring the Prime Minister’s personal experience into the debate. He had a difficult family circumstance, and of course someone with that background will understand the NHS very well.

Rosie Cooper: rose—

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady did not make her point very well, and she did not allow me to intervene on her. I am sure that the Minister will address the points that she made about the letter.

Simon Burns: It might be useful at this stage to clear up the point about the letter. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not replied to her letter, as though it had been sent months ago. It was dated 12 October, so I presume that it arrived in the Department of Health on 13 or 14 October, about 12 or 13 days ago. Hon. Members know that the guidelines, which the Department rigorously keeps to, state that it may take up to 20 days to receive a response. My right hon. Friend has not been discourteous, and the hon. Lady will receive a reply within the time scale.

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying an earlier point.
	I will not engage in mud-slinging, but will talk about what hon. Members on both sides of the House want to emerge from the NHS. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was absolutely right that some service reconfiguration is necessary to deliver services in communities, improve community care and build an integrated health service with integrated health care. The right hon. Gentleman spoke specifically about an integrated system and better integrating adult social care, especially for the elderly, with current NHS providers, breaking down some of the silos between primary care, the hospital sector, and adult social services.

Barbara Keeley: Was the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I was at the Select Committee on Health on Tuesday when I asked Richard Humphries of the King’s Fund how the Health and Social Care Bill will impact on integrated commissioning? Richard Humphries said that there is a danger to integration because people are
	leaving PCTs, working relationships are being disrupted and broken up, and partnerships are being disrupted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, we face years of disruption. That is the danger. Progress on the integration agenda was slow, but it is chaotic now.

Daniel Poulter: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Any period of transition will be difficult, and must be managed. Will the mechanisms and bodies that the Health and Social Care Bill will put in place be better able to deliver community-focused, integrated care than the existing system? I want to consider two matters that we will come to later: health and wellbeing boards, and basing commissioning fundamentally in the community. Both are good mechanisms for delivering better integrated care, and I will return to that.
	We have too many silos in the NHS. The primary care sector often does not integrate with the secondary care sector as well as we would like. For example, hospitals are paid by results, but they have no financial incentive to ensure that they prevent inappropriate hospital admissions. We talk about better looking after the frail elderly and about ensuring that we prevent people with mental health problems from reaching crisis point and having to be admitted, but there are no financial incentives and drivers in the system to ensure that that is achieved to the extent we would like. A and E admissions in many hospitals are rising year on year—in rural areas that is partly because we do not have an adequate out-of-hours GP service—and far too often the frail elderly are not properly supported in the community.
	If we put the majority of commissioning into the community with local commissioning boards, that will provide a more integrated and joined-up approach to local commissioning, which will undoubtedly help to prevent inappropriate admissions. We no longer want an NHS in which people with mental health problems or the elderly present in crisis because they have not been supported in the community. That must be the focus of care, and the focus of delivery of services.

Sarah Newton: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of integrating social care and the NHS. I want to share with him the good, concrete steps that are being taken in Cornwall, where we have a pilot health and wellbeing board, and the beginning of integration. That has not happened before in Cornwall, and we are about to have the first joint commissioning of services. That is the way forward to improve patient experience in the NHS.

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for a helpful intervention, which makes the point very well that we need integration through community-based commissioning.
	The other key factor is how better to integrate adult social care—the right hon. Member for Leigh made the point, as did the Secretary of State—into the current NHS system. At the moment, integration of services is sometimes variable. There is a good example in Torbay of a more integrated system, but what are the Government proposing that will at least facilitate the integration of services? Local health and wellbeing boards are definitely a step in the right direction because for the first time they will bring together adult social care from local authorities with housing providers, the NHS, and primary
	and secondary care. That must be a step in the right direction for delivering the integrated care that we all want. It will help to provide more community-focused care.
	I referred to the concern about inappropriate admissions, and the fact that elderly people are not supported in their own homes. The savings in adult social care from doing things well are NHS savings, but at the moment there are different cultures in two different organisations, which do not always talk to each other in different parts of the country, and that will not benefit patients. Bringing people together on a health and wellbeing board must be good for patients and integrated care.
	For all those reasons, I hope that we will have more positive Opposition day debates on the NHS, and I hope that the Opposition will at least concede that some good things are happening as a result of health care reform.

Debbie Abrahams: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I do not want to impugn his integrity, or to suggest that what he wants for the NHS is not exactly what I want. The issue is how we do that. Unfortunately, some unhelpful remarks were made in the run-up to the general election. At the least, they were disingenuous; at worst they were duplicitous. This debate is about trust, and there are serious questions about whether we can trust the Government with our NHS.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has argued that pre-election pledges have been broken, and I want to speak specifically about how that relates to NHS funding. The first broken promise came within months of the general election. We have heard about the posters that we all saw as we went round our constituencies, showing a congenial right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, promising to “cut the deficit, not the NHS”.
	Last October’s spending review seemed to support that position, with a 1.3% increase in NHS resource spending and real-terms growth of what seemed to be 0.4%. The Secretary of State, who is just returning to his place, was unable to answer my question on that. I want to talk abut management costs, because the Department is focusing on that spending. It is important to be clear about management costs in the NHS budget. In 1999, they were less than 3%; in 2010, they were just over 3%. Independent research has shown that, if anything, the NHS is under-managed rather than over-managed. [ Interruption. ] I can certainly provide evidence for hon. Members.

Therese Coffey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: No, I am sorry; I am not going to give way.
	We should compare our health care management costs with those in the United States, where they run at over 20%. We need to be very careful about what we are talking about.

Steve Brine: rose —

Debbie Abrahams: I am not going to give way—I am sorry.
	In this year’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s higher inflation forecast meant that NHS spending is now falling in real terms. House of Commons Library calculations show that it will fall by about 1% in real terms over the next four years—a loss in spending power of more than £1 billion by 2015. In the light of the recent inflation figures—[ Interruption . ] To help hon. Members out, last year’s figure was 5.6% based on the retail prices index. As inflation is at a three-year high, the loss in spending power is likely to be even greater. To keep his election promise, the Prime Minister would have to spend at least £1 billion more than he is doing.
	This month’s King’s Fund report on NHS performance shows the effects of these financial pressures on the NHS, with the majority of finance directors saying that they are very or fairly pessimistic about the financial future of their local health economy. The Health and Social Care Bill, which is being debated in the other place, very conveniently sets out ways to help struggling foundation trusts. First, they can borrow money from the City to invest. Secondly, because foundation trusts will have to repay the money they have borrowed by treating more NHS patients and more private patients, they have been helped by the abolition of the cap on private patients’ income. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, by raising income in this way they become economic enterprises and open themselves up to part B of EU competition law, so that they have to compete for every tender with private sector companies such as Capita, United Health, and so on. Incidentally, seven trusts, including in the Secretary of State’s constituency, have already said that they will be increasing the private bed cap. There is a private hospital in the Cambridgeshire University hospitals foundation trust area. Finally, when—not if—a foundation trust still ends up in financial meltdown, the Bill’s new failure regime means that they will be able to sell off NHS publicly-owned assets to private equity companies. There are direct parallels with Southern Cross.
	The impact of that is already being felt in patient care. In addition to what is said by constituents attending my and many of my hon. Friends’ surgeries, the King’s Fund report showed that the proportion of patients waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment has increased nationally. Over a quarter of NHS trusts admitted fewer than 90% of their patients within 18 weeks. In my constituency, Pennine acute hospitals trust is able to treat only 70% of patients within its 18-week targets. That is more than double the number of trusts failing to meet the 18-week target in 2010.
	I am afraid, however, that an increase in waiting lists is what the Government want; it is one of the intended consequences of the Bill. This increase in demand is feeding the growing private health care and insurance market. We know from the US that as people on low incomes will be less likely to be able to afford these products, there will be a direct impact on the inequalities that the Secretary of State says that he wants to reduce.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is concerned about health inequalities. Is she is worried as I am about changing the weighting of health inequalities in allocations of funding? In Salford, our experience is that that can
	push GP practices in deprived areas into the red in their indicative budgets, so they will be cutting down referrals and reconsidering treatments—another way of denigrating and cutting the benefits of services to patients.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that in a minute.
	In fact, that is broken promise No. 2. Last week in Health questions, I asked the Secretary of State why, in December last year, he made a political decision, against the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to maintain the health inequalities component of PCTs’ funding allocation at 15%, and instead reduced it to 10%. He replied that he had made no decision against the advice of that Committee. However, it is quite clear from last September’s letter to him from the chair of the Committee that that is exactly what he did:
	“I would like to draw your attention to ACRA’s position in relation to the health inequalities adjustment. We recommend that the current form of the adjustment is retained”.
	The
	“current form of the adjustment”
	was 15%, and the Secretary of State made a political decision to reduce that. He should be apologising to the House for misleading us in his response to my question. The effect of that reduction is to shift funding from poor health areas to good health areas. The Secretary of State owes an apology to the people in those areas, as well.
	I turn to broken promise No. 3. Although the move of public health to local authorities is welcome in principle, the timing could not be worse. Already, we are seeing plans that jeopardise the public health function as they move into local authorities besieged with cuts. As Labour has consistently argued, our health and social care system needs to balance the treatment and care of people who are poorly with creating supportive environments that enable all our citizens to live as healthily as possible for as long as possible—focusing upstream on stopping people falling in rather than on pulling them out further downstream, to use a familiar metaphor. That is absolutely key, but unfortunately the current approach means that it is not going to happen. For example, public health budgets, said to be ring-fenced, are not being ring-fenced. The shadow budgets that were being provided to public health departments for 2012 were supposed to increase from 3.7% to just over 4%, but further analysis showed that that increase was due to merging the public health and drug action team budgets, and not to any new moneys. There was, in effect, no real increase in public health funding.
	I anticipate a future broken promise in relation to what the Secretary of State has said about privatisation: I think it will be a case of “Watch this space.”

Jeremy Lefroy: I apologise for missing the opening few minutes of the debate. I was attending the awarding of the gold Duke of Edinburgh’s award to 800 young people in London. It would be marvellous if the press would give as much time to reporting the fantastic achievements of our young people as to the occasional incidents of antisocial behaviour in our communities.
	I wish to speak about what I have learned from the experiences that we have had in my constituency regarding our own hospital over the past few years, which have been very troubling for many of us. I will consider these under three headings. First, there is the quality of care and patient safety. As we have learned only recently in the report by the Care Quality Commission, there are problems with quality of care, particularly for elderly people, around the country. That is not the case everywhere; there are some fantastic instances all over the country of very high-quality care. However, it is clearly something that we have to address. I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the initiative in instigating the CQC report, and I would be very interested to hear from him, as would my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), about what action he proposes to take in the coming years. I know that the Secretary of State takes this matter extremely seriously.
	Patient safety is absolutely essential to the NHS. “First, do no harm”—we all know that from the Hippocratic oath. It is given the highest priority, but it does not always seem to happen. Of course, it is a matter of several different things coming together, such as training, levels of staffing and process—but, above all, attitude. What is the Secretary of State doing more to promote the culture of patient safety throughout the NHS? Again, he takes that particularly seriously, and it was mentioned in last year’s White Paper.
	Sometimes, the NHS seems almost to rely too much on the complaints system. A complaint happens when it is too late and when the experience has passed: when something unfortunate or tragic has happened, or when care has not been all that it could have been. I would suggest a system that has been taken up by some trusts and particularly in Brighton, whereby people can raise an issue via an urgent phone line while they, their loved one or their relative is in hospital, perhaps to an independent person who can take up the concern, whether it be about malnutrition in hospital, a lack of care or the inaccurate dispensing of drugs. It can then be addressed on the spot rather than after the event, when a complaint goes through the procedure and lots of letters are written and time consumed. I ask the Secretary of State to take that into account.
	The second issue is changes in hospital services, which are a huge challenge for many acute hospitals, especially smaller ones. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that care has to be taken out of the hospital setting. That is being done across the country and it is essential to the future of the NHS. However, it has to be done in a careful and measured way, so that the reconfiguration and integration of community services complement each other. It is no good having reconfiguration without integrated community services. I heard the case of a constituent who was waiting in an NHS hospital for several weeks at a cost of about £600 a night when she could have been discharged, because the care services were not available in the community. I am glad to say that Staffordshire county council is working closely with the NHS to produce an integrated care trust. That must be the way forward for most, if not all, of the country.
	There is concern in all our communities about emergency services. We have to bear it in mind that the population of this country is likely to rise to 70 million by 2028
	according to the Office for National Statistics. We need to ensure that the local development plans that are being toiled over at the moment take into account the increasing population and where it will be in 10 to 20 years’ time, and that we do not just base our services on the current population figures. We must also consider communications and whether it will be possible for somebody to get to an A and E department in a reasonable time if their closest one is downgraded. Those matters need to be taken into account because they are of huge concern to all our constituents. I ask the Minister to respond on that point.
	On communication, let us be honest about the pressures on the NHS and say that we will not be able to have everything that we want. We need to talk with our constituents and hear what their priorities are in each area.
	Finally, I want to refer to shortages in trained staff. There has been a shortage of A and E consultants at my local hospital. I am grateful to the Department of Health, the primary care trust and the Secretary of State for taking a personal interest in the matter and giving us assistance. However, that is a short-term solution and we need a long-term one. The previous Government did well to start up some new medical schools, including one at Keele university in Staffordshire, but we need to train more people. I understand that up to 30% of NHS doctors come from overseas. We are relying on the medical training of other countries, many of which need those doctors more than we do. I ask the Secretary of State what plans he has to ensure that we begin to see a flow-through of trained doctors and nurses into the NHS. Of course, we have to start that now to fulfil the needs that we will have many years down the line.
	Stafford has been through difficult times and continues to experience them, even though many incredibly dedicated people are tackling our problems. I welcome the help that the Government, the Secretary of State and the primary care trust have given. The next few years will be very trying for all of us as we meet those challenges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich said, we must remember that the patient is at the heart of everything—not processes, not bodies, not organisations, but the patient.

Stephen Pound: There are few areas of our work in this House that may be described, honestly and without hysteria, as matters of life and death. The national health service is so utterly central to our existence, our future and the hopes of our country that it is no surprise that the emotions it engenders as are strong as those that have been witnessed on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
	I have to tell the Secretary of State that he has a problem. He is a man of great charm, he is widely liked and he is popular, yet he has not sealed the deal on his disintegration, disaggregation and atomisation of the national health service. He has not been able to persuade the Royal College of General Practitioners, which tells us that three quarters of its members oppose it. He has not been able to persuade Professor Malcolm Grant, his own choice to run the commissioning board, who describes the plan as “completely unintelligible”. The Secretary of State wishes to persuade the nation that it is appropriate, at this time of all times, to spend about
	£3 billion on reorganisation—money that could be far better spent dealing with the dental abscess of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and all the other problems that face us.
	The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) spoke for many in the House when she prayed for a depoliticisation of this issue. The reality is that the national health service was born amid the gun smoke of political opposition; it was born opposed entirely by one political party in this House and supported by another. Of the supporters—

Steve Brine: rose—

Stephen Pound: Hold on a moment, I am just having a rant.
	Of the supporters, let us give credit—because there once was a time when we could give credit to a decent, humane, sensible, consistent bunch of men and women—to the Liberals of those days and to Beveridge for the work that he did. Above all, let us never forget the transcendent genius of a south Wales miner’s son who left school at the age of 14, Aneurin Bevan, who gave us our national—I emphasise “national”—health service.

Steve Brine: I apologise profusely for interrupting a rant that I was enjoying. While we are on the subject of opposition to the conception of the national health service, can we place on record the fact that the British Medical Association also opposed it?

Stephen Pound: May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I do not know how anyone persuaded him to bowl me that patsy ball that I can immediately crack to the boundary. He is absolutely right. Dr Hill, the radio doctor, opposed the national health service. Aneurin Bevan said that he had had to
	“stuff their mouths with gold”.
	Of course the producer interest opposed the beginning of the national health service because it was about the consumers—that was its major difference. Of course the vested interests opposed the creation of the national health service—that is no surprise. But that was then.
	The national health service was born in compromise. I was born in July 1948, as was the NHS. For many years I was suspected to have been the first child ever born on the NHS, in Queen Charlotte’s hospital, but somebody in Salford beat me to it.

Barbara Keeley: Trafford.

Stephen Pound: Trafford. I beg your pardon. However, the year before I was born, my parents had a son who died at the age of seven months. The year before that, they had another son who died at the age of eight months. I was born on 5 July 1948, two days after the health service, and I have my five brothers and sisters alive to this day. It is that important.
	When I worked as a porter for 10 years at the Middlesex hospital, where my sister and wife were nurses and one of my brothers was an ambulance driver—half the family seemed to be employed there—we realised the consequences of the pragmatic approach to the health service. We had a private patients wing where people like myself, paid by the national health service, did work for people who paid money to a difference source, and where doctors trained under the
	NHS got personal recompense. One of the single most important aspects of our lives has been political from day one.
	Each of the Health Ministers will remember, as I do, that we have sat in the same House as an hon. Member who lost his seat over a hospital closure. Let us never forget Wyre Forest and Kidderminster hospital. It is almost impossible to be objective about this issue. When the Turnberg report was published, it proposed an entirely sensible reconfiguration of London’s acute general hospitals, but it was opposed by almost everyone because of parochial and local issues. When polyclinics were proposed under the previous Government—one of the most logical, sensible, rational and helpful ways of providing primary health care—they were violently opposed by the Conservative party.
	The situation now is that there is no consensus. However, I have not often seen anything quite so consensual, positive and forward-looking as the reference in today’s motion to an offer made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Health Secretary of
	“cross-party talks on reforming NHS commissioning.”
	What could be better for the country, and for the reputation of this House, than our recognising that the NHS is not a political football or an issue on which we can strike postures? Yes, there are ideological differences between us, and Opposition Members may wish to see a greater infusion of finance-led choice, more and more commercialisation and an end to the Whitley system, which has survived for so many years. They may wish to see local pay bargaining setting hospital against hospital, clinic against clinic and clinician against clinician, with a constant stream of industrial disputes as localised pay bargaining bursts out all over the place in some industrial conflagration that attracts even more attention. At the moment we have one of the lowest numbers of hospital managers anywhere in Europe, and we will inevitably have to spend more and more on a greater and greater number of managers to deal with all that localised bargaining.

Debbie Abrahams: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Pound: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about the subject than I do.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am greatly enjoying his speech. Does he agree that the opening up of competition under the Health and Social Care Bill as it stands will be a real threat to the NHS as we know it?

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and may I place it on record that, as I am sure virtually everybody in the House would agree, she has brought enormous expertise in this area to the House, for which we are extremely grateful?
	The NHS cannot be disaggregated. It has to be a national health service, not a notional health service, a postcode health service, a better-in-some-parts-than-others health service or a good-for-Kensington-bad-for-Kidderminster health service. It has to be for the nation, and why? Because Beveridge did not just produce a one-point proposal for the NHS. There were actually
	five evils that he wished to slay. It was an integrated proposal that addressed want, hunger, ambition and other issues.
	The NHS is not just an agency to patch people up; it is part of providing a healthy, productive nation and increasing the good and the good life within this country. At so many levels, we have to look beyond the bottom line and beyond, as the hon. Member for Southport said, the bean-counting philosophy. The NHS should not be about the click of the abacus in some cobwebbed recess, or about constantly seeking whether things can be bought cheaper here or commissioned for a lower price there. It should not be about container-loads of cheap goods being shipped in from Shanghai because some GP commissioning group somewhere has discovered it can get a discount on Tubigrip. It should be about the recognition that the health of a nation is utterly crucial, basic and intrinsic to that nation’s hope and future. Without health, we have no future.

Pat Glass: I am sorry to break my hon. Friend’s flow, but is it not the underlying principle of this country that we take care of one another? That is the principle behind the NHS and what the NHS stands for.

Stephen Pound: It has been said—not by me, but by some—that the NHS has almost become the national religion. They say that as Christianity has faded, as it has in some places—not in my constituency, and certainly not in my home—the NHS has become more important. The NHS is the perfect example of what Galbraith called the “gift relationship”, when we look out for one another. We should not constantly look for the bottom line, but instead look to be our brothers’ keepers. That is the principle—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Liz Kendall: It is a privilege to close the debate on the Government’s record on the NHS and to follow such excellent contributions from many hon. Members.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) rightly spoke of the waste of the Government’s NHS reorganisation. The Government have spent £850 million on redundancy payments for primary care trust staff who will be re-employed in commissioning organisations elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) rightly asked the Secretary of State, who is moving from his usual place on the Front Bench, why he was not aware that trusts are re-banding nurses in order to save costs. Labour Members, who talk and listen to front-line staff, know that only too well.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), whom I was privilege to sit alongside in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, rightly raised the risks of the Bill widening health inequalities and worsening patient care. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that the Bill will be one of the Government’s biggest mistakes.
	The hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly raised the important issue of the need to integrate health and social care and develop more community-based services, although Opposition Members believe that the Government’s NHS reorganisation, and their huge cuts to local council budgets and social care, will make that far harder, not easier, to achieve.
	Before the general election, the Prime Minister made three key promises on the NHS. He promised no more top-down reorganisations; he promised patients up and down the country a bare-knuckle fight to save their local hospitals; and in both the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement, he promised that he would increase health spending in real terms in each year of the Parliament. Barely 18 months later, he is forcing through the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS—the NHS chief executive says that it is so large, it can be seen from outer space. Local NHS services in Bury, Burnley, Hartlepool and Chase Farm are not being saved or reopened as the Prime Minister and Secretary of State pledged, and, according to Treasury figures, spending on the NHS was cut by more than £750 million in real terms in the first year of this Government. That is three promises made and three promises broken by a Prime Minister who claimed that his personal priority was spelt out in three letters: NHS.

Gareth Johnson: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the past 40 years, real-terms spending on the NHS has been reduced on only five occasions, the majority of which were under a Labour Government?

Liz Kendall: I wish the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the debate, when it was made clear that the last real-terms cut in NHS spending was in the last year of the previous Conservative Government.
	Doctors, nurses, patients and the public know the truth about this Government’s plans. When the NHS should be focused on meeting the biggest financial challenge of its life and on improving patient care, it has instead been plunged into chaos. At precisely the time that the NHS needs maximum leadership and financial grip, the Government’s reorganisation is creating havoc. First, they said that they would scrap primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, and replace them with GP consortia. Then they changed their mind, merging PCTs and SHAs in supposedly temporary clusters and replacing consortia with clinical commissioning groups and new clinical senates, and now they have changed their mind again: PCT and SHA clusters have apparently been saved as part of the Government’s huge new national quango, the NHS Commissioning Board, which will employ more than 3,000 people.
	Professor Malcolm Grant, the Government’s own choice to run the NHS Commissioning Board, last week called the Government’s plans “completely unintelligible”. The very people who are supposed to be running the NHS are confused and wasting time trying to figure out ill-thought-through Government plans. That time and energy should be spent on patients. Far from cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, the Government are creating hundreds of new organisations and wasting more than £2.5 billion in the process, when this money should be spent on front-line patient care.
	What has been the result of 18 months of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government running our NHS? Thousands of front-line clinical staff are losing their jobs and posts are being frozen, piling pressure on those who remain. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but this month the Royal College of Nursing has surveyed 6,000 of its staff and made it clear that 20% of the nurses and health care assistants surveyed said that their job is going to be cut, that 40% are seeing recruitment freezes in their trust and that 13% are seeing bed and ward closures in their trust. Who is more likely to be accurate? The nurses and health care assistants working in our NHS, or the Government, who are denying that any of these changes are taking place?
	The result is that patient care is going backwards. Far from what Ministers claim about waiting lists being fine, the number of patients waiting longer than four hours in A and E is now double that of last year. Twice as many patients are waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic test, and six times as many are waiting longer than 13 weeks. Anybody who has waited, or has had a family member who has waited, more than three months even to get their test knows how worrying and frightening it is, yet the Government deny that there is a problem. Furthermore, 48% more patients are now waiting more than 18 weeks for their hospital treatment.
	Despite all the evidence, the Government are in denial. They deny that the number of front-line NHS staff and the number of staff training places are being cut, yet a recent survey by the Royal College of Midwives has shown that six out of 10 SHAs have been freezing staff training places because of the cuts. Given that the Government promised 3,000 more midwives, that is a problem, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have increasing birth rates.

Andrew Bridgen: What is the hon. Lady’s opinion of the £12 billion wasted by the previous Labour Government on the failed NHS IT project?

Liz Kendall: The hon. Gentleman, who is a constituency neighbour of mine, would do better focusing his attention on the RCN and RCM in our area, which are asking us why the Government are not fulfilling their commitment on extra midwives. If he goes to the hospitals in Leicester, as his constituents do, he will know that there are concerns about that.
	The Government deny that the number of front-line NHS staff is being cut, that waiting lists are rising and, worst of all, that there is still widespread and growing opposition to their NHS plans.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady seriously believe that the £20 billion-worth of savings required by the last Labour Budget could be achieved without cuts?

Liz Kendall: We have been clear on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) took some difficult decisions when he was Secretary of State for Health, unlike the current Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend looked at what was happening in local hospitals and took the difficult decisions, based on clinical advice, to improve patient care. That is what this Government should be doing.
	The Prime Minister says that
	“the whole health profession is on board for what is now being done,”
	but that is simply not the case. The RCN says that the Bill
	“will have a seriously detrimental effect upon the NHS and the delivery of patient care”.
	Four hundred of the country’s leading public health experts warn that the Government’s plans will cause “irreparable harm” and fail to deliver
	“efficiency, quality, fairness or choice”.
	The British Medical Association says that the Bill
	“poses an unacceptably high risk to the NHS”.
	Government Members now like to criticise the BMA, but before the general election they applauded everything the BMA said. They always want to have it both ways. Three quarters of GPs—the very people this Government claim they want to empower—have said through the Royal College of General Practitioners that the Bill should be withdrawn. [ Interruption. ] The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), says from a sedentary position that those groups—the RCN, public health experts, the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners—are self-selecting. That is the kind of dismissal of front-line staff that has caused such problems for the Government.
	It is not just NHS staff whom the Government refuse to listen to. Organisations such as Age UK and Carers UK say that social care is in financial crisis too. The Government repeatedly claim that they have increased funding for social care, but eight out of 10 local councils are now restricting services to cover only those with substantial or critical needs. Two thirds say that they are closing care homes or day care centres too. The Government’s huge cuts to local council budgets mean that vital services and support for older people, their carers and their families are being eroded. That is not protecting the most vulnerable in our society, nor is it protecting taxpayers’ interests, because if we do not help older people to stay healthy and independent in their own homes, they end up in hospital.
	In conclusion, when people think back to what the Prime Minister said before the election and the personal promises he made on the NHS, they now see the truth: a Government who are out of touch with what is really happening; a Government who refuse to listen to front-line staff; a Government in total denial about the true impact of their reckless NHS plans. This Government’s record on the NHS is one of promises cynically made and shamelessly being broken. I commend the motion to the House.

Simon Burns: It has been an interesting experience listening to the range of contributions that have been made over the past few hours. Having studied the shadow Secretary of State’s tweets yesterday afternoon heralding today’s debate, one would have expected this to be an action-packed afternoon. One remembers the grand old Duke of York marching his troops up to the top of the hill and then down to the bottom, but the grand old Duke of York had 10,000 men. For most of this debate, apart from the
	wind-ups, the shadow Secretary of State has barely managed to get more than six Opposition Back Benchers here, which is fewer than the Government have had, so on that point I fear that he has failed.
	Let me turn to some of the speeches that I had to listen to. It was a delight to hear the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) again, after a break from the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill. Broken record his speech may have been—it was the same story—but it was worth listening to, even though the accuracy gained nothing in the telling.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who spoke fluently and knowledgably, on the basis of his intense and intimate experience of working in the NHS and his insights into the challenges we face in social care and improving the integration of care.
	The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made an interesting contribution, although at times I began to think that she might be the only person who believed what she was saying. None the less, it was interesting.
	The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—as always, a jokester in our midst—put forward a serious message in a jocular way. From my experience of the NHS, both personal and professional, however, I felt that a lot of what he said bore little relation to reality. I can assure him that Government Members share the core principles of the NHS. I was also interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). Anyone who represents that part of the country will have a deep understanding of the problems, as well as the successes, of the local health service. He was right in what he said about the future of accident and emergency services and about the critical issue of training.
	I am saddened by the fact that the Opposition have once again shown themselves to be more interested in trying to revive their own political fortunes than in improving the outcomes of patients. Once again, they prefer to scaremonger and blindly attack, rather than put forward any policies of their own. They have been a policy-free zone in this debate. Once again, they reveal themselves to be on the back foot when it comes to securing the future of the NHS, as well as wrong-headed.
	The Opposition claim that the Government are cutting NHS spending, which is not only nonsense but outrageous. Surprisingly, only last summer, the right hon. Member for Leigh said—this has been quoted before, but I will repeat it—that it would be
	“irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
	Ironically, that is not a view that I share. I fundamental disagree with it, because I believe that we should increase the funding of the NHS in real terms. [ Interruption. ] I do not care how much the right hon. Gentleman says it; if he looks at the—

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: I will in one minute, just to disprove what the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) says.
	If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to believe what I say, he can look at the chart produced by the Wales Audit Office, an independent body, which shows,
	if one cares to read it, real-terms spending increases in each year in the English NHS. Ironically, it also shows such increases in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but if we look at the red parts of the chart, we can see that there are certainly no increases in Labour-controlled Wales.

Andy Burnham: rose—

Simon Burns: I will give way once, briefly, then I must make progress, because I have only eight minutes.

Andy Burnham: The Minister says that the Government are providing real-terms increases, but he does not take into account inflation or the £1 billion transfer to social care. Will he accept the figures that I have here? They are the total departmental expenditure limits published by the Treasury in July 2011. They show that, in 2009-10, £102 billion was spent on the NHS. The figure for 2010-11 was £101 billion. I invite him to tell me that those figures are not correct.

Simon Burns: The right hon. Gentleman told us that, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he understood figures, so he will understand, as I do, that “real terms” means an increase over and above inflation—

Andy Burnham: rose—

Simon Burns: One minute. The right hon. Gentleman wants a reply, so he must hold his horses.
	It is the gross domestic product deflator that determines how one increases in real terms the funding of the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has once again scored an own goal in reading out those figures, because they are based on the Labour Government’s spending for the year in which they were leaving power.

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No, I said that I would give way once. I must now make progress.
	We are increasing funding for the NHS in real terms over this Parliament, and stripping out unnecessary bureaucracy to focus precious resources on the front line and not the back office. So in place of management-led primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, we are introducing clinically led clinical commissioning groups, to put money and power in the hands of front-line doctors and nurses. That is why we are driving through the plans to make the NHS more efficient by focusing on prevention, on innovation, on productivity and on driving up the quality of care. A fact that Labour Members appear rapidly to have forgotten is that better care is very often less expensive care, and less expensive care means there is more money to spend on the health service.

Liz Kendall: rose —

Kevin Barron: rose —

Simon Burns: I am not giving way, as I have only five minutes left.
	Across the country, local health services are coming together to redesign services, thinking creatively to give patients better treatment and very often also making significant cost savings.

Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: In Torbay, for example, by enhancing the role of the discharge co-ordinator across health and social care, the average length of stay in hospital has been cut by more than 10%, freeing up nurses to spend more time on patient care.

Kevin Barron: rose —

Simon Burns: In Yorkshire and the Humber, the ambulance service gives PCTs a monthly list of their top 10 most frequent callers. These people are then given intensive personalised help, including the use of modern telemedicine to monitor their vital signs. The result is better care for patients as well as—

Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, I took part in this debate and I asked the Minister a question and requested him to answer it in his winding-up speech. Yet he will not even acknowledge that I spoke in the debate. Is there anything you can do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to help Back Benchers keep the Executive in check?

Nigel Evans: Absolutely nothing. I am sure, however, that the Minister will have heard the point.

Simon Burns: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, Mr Deputy Speaker? I heard it about three times in Committee and I heard it on Report; I replied each time, as well as writing to the right hon. Gentleman. He does not like the answer, so there is no point in taking the intervention again.
	As I was saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, in Yorkshire and the Humber the ambulance service gives PCTs—[Interruption.] I know I have already said it, but there was so much disruption and noise that Labour Members did not hear it. In Yorkshire and the Humber, the ambulance service gives PCTs a monthly list of their top 10 most frequent callers so that they can talk to them and help them in future, saving money and staff time that can be concentrated elsewhere.

Kevin Barron: rose —

Liz Kendall: rose —

Simon Burns: The result is better care for patients and, for this group, a 80% fall in unplanned admissions, a 20% reduction in bed days and a halving of ambulance journeys. That means better care for patients and better value for the taxpayer.

Liz Kendall: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: Just as Labour Members are wrong about NHS funding, they are also wrong about the Bill. [Interruption.] The Bill focuses on the most important thing for patients—the outcome of the treatment they need either to cure them or to stabilise their long-term conditions. Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals—[Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Minister. [Interruption.] Order. He has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.

Simon Burns: Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are being empowered to take decisions and to design the innovative, integrated services that will best serve the interests of their patients, with a resolute focus on outcomes. The NHS outcomes framework, and the growing number of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standards will mean that patients and clinicians will be able to see clearly just how good individual providers—even individual consultant teams—are performing and then demand the treatment that they deserve.
	In the short time since this Government have been elected, care for patients has improved significantly in many areas. For example, MRSA down; C. difficile, down; mixed-sex accommodation, massively down; more doctors, fewer managers; more patients with an NHS dentist; more cancer screening; the cancer drugs fund; the new 111 urgent care service; more money; less bureaucracy; and a far brighter future for the national health service. The motion before us is devoid of reality and it was backed up by a number of speeches that were divorced from the real world. Its claims are false, its premises unsound. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject it.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 228, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We come to the next matter to be debated on this Opposition day, namely the Government’s record on environmental protection and green growth.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Who could neglect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)? We will deal with his point of order first.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like some clarification from you because I do not know the answer to this question. When two of my constituents went through the Cromwell Green security check area, they were searched and photographed, obviously, but then a piece of paper they had with them—a pensions petition signed by the staff of Four Oaks primary school—was taken from them. When they asked why, they were told it was a security risk. Can you clarify what might have been meant by a piece of paper being a security risk? Were staff frightened that somebody might get a paper cut?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given advance notice of his intention to raise it. I have a fertile imagination but it is stretched to the limits by an attempt to discover what on earth could be the problem here. The hon. Gentleman and others will know that some items are considered out of order for bringing into the House, but I cannot imagine why this would fall into that category. I think it only right to say that I will have a conversation and look into the matter. I know that the staff of the House always do their best, but my instant reaction is that I cannot imagine why it should have caused offence. Moreover, I cannot, off the top of my head, credit the idea that constituents of the hon. Gentleman’s coming to the House would cause offence.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Mary Creagh: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the UK risks being left behind in its attempts to attract global investment in environmental technologies; agrees with the British Retail Consortium that the recent Waste Review is a disappointment; further agrees with the Nature Check report by 29 environmental charities that the Government has failed to deliver its environmental goals; condemns the Government’s 27 per cent. cut in flood defence investment from £354 million to £259 million a year; calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth and bring forward spending on rural infrastructure projects for flood defences and rural broadband; further calls on the Government to raise the UK recycling target to 70 per cent. by 2025 to create an additional 50,000 jobs; and believes the Government should ensure mandatory carbon emissions reporting for all large UK companies to kick-start green jobs and growth.
	May I begin by expressing Opposition Members’ regret that the Environment Secretary is unable to join us for the debate? I understand she is giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is a very short walk from the Grimond room in Portcullis House to the Chamber and I hope that we have the opportunity to debate these issues with her at a future date. I would certainly look forward to that.

Therese Coffey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mary Creagh: I have not even started yet.

Therese Coffey: My understanding is that the motion was tabled only last night, so the Government would have known only today that the attendance of the Secretary of State might be wanted, whereas her arrangements with the Select Committee were made some time ago.

Mary Creagh: It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she appears in the Chamber. She could have been informed this morning about an urgent question and would have had to appear before the House. The motion was tabled last night at about 5 o’clock, so she has had almost 24 hours to prepare her speech. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), has been beavering away on his remarks.
	Let me start by taking the House back to 2006 and a fresh-faced Leader of the then Opposition visiting the Arctic circle. We all remember the Prime Minister hugging a husky, as well as “Vote blue, go green”. The Tory manifesto told us,
	“That is why we have put green issues back at the heart of our politics and that is why they will be at the heart of our government.”
	Several megatonnes of carbon dioxide and hot air were emitted by a variety of Conservative MPs confessing their green damascene conversion. In opposition, going green was an essential part of detoxifying the Tory brand, but in the 18 short months that the Government have been in power we have seen progress stall on the environment. As their disastrous economic policies take hold, with confidence failing, unemployment and inflation rising and growth flatlining, the green talk has not been matched by green action.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review—the second-biggest spending cut of any Department—taking £2 billion in cash out of the environment over the next four years. The Secretary of State was bounced into a disastrous plan to raise £100 million by selling England’s forests, and we await the review of the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones. [ Interruption. ] I am glad to see that the parliamentary private secretary is distributing lines to take from the Government. It is always good to see the briefing machine in action. We hope the brief has been printed on Forest Stewardship Council paper.
	The Government have abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government’s watchdog on sustainable development.

Kelvin Hopkins: Would not the Government do better to try to close the tax gap and stop people hiding their money in foreign accounts, rather than cutting valuable budgets?

Mary Creagh: Yes, I agree, and I know that the Government are working to close tax loopholes, as we did in government.
	DEFRA published its “Mainstreaming sustainable development” strategy in February—just seven pages to cut across the whole of Government. Its sustainable development programme board has not met since December last year and the sustainable development policy working group has not met since November. We got those answers in June 2011, so we can see that sustainable development is clearly no longer at the heart of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	What does this add up to? The Government have a plan for cuts but no plan for the environment, yet at Tory conference the Environment Secretary told her colleagues:
	“I passionately believe going green is both a moral and economic imperative.”
	The very next day the Chancellor told the conference:
	“We’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
	It was the day the husky died. The greenest Government ever were not even the greenest Government in 2010.
	Our Labour Government were the greenest Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who makes a welcome return to our team, for the progress that he made on the environment when he was a Minister.

David Mowat: I note the comment, “Our Labour Government were the greenest Government”. We were 25th out of the 27 countries in the EU for renewables production in 2009-10. Is that what the hon. Lady means by “the greenest Government”?

Mary Creagh: We on the Labour Benches have always protected the environment, whether by setting up the national parks or introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Climate Change Act 2008. These show our green leadership. Will the Chancellor’s comments and the spat with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change enhance or reduce our leadership on these issues in Europe?

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Lady think a little humility might be in order, given that when we take into account the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions, under Labour’s three terms of office, greenhouse gas emissions rose, rather than fell?

Mary Creagh: A little humility might be in order for the hon. Lady, who ignores the fact that we were the first Government in the world to legislate for binding emissions targets.

David Mowat: rose—

Mary Creagh: I shall make a little progress and I will give way again.
	Today we see open warfare breaking out between Government Departments over mixed messages to UK plc, with the headline in The Independent, “Osborne’s anti-green agenda splits Coalition” and today the speech from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and snub to the Chancellor to cheers from a business audience. The only people who benefit from such Cabinet warfare are the climate sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, who want us to do less.
	Our motion today expresses our concern at this internecine warfare and proposes three steps that the Department can take now to restore business confidence in the green agenda: bringing forward infrastructure spending on flood defence and broadband, as suggested in Labour’s five-point plan for growth; committing to mandatory carbon reporting to stimulate green innovation; and higher waste targets to drive private sector job creation. I shall address each of those in turn.

Harriett Baldwin: I represent a flood-hit constituency in the Severn valley. We had serious floods in 1998, 2000 and 2007. Since May 2010, Pershore, Powick, Uckinghall, Kempsey and two schemes in Upton-upon-Severn have been started or completed, compared to the record under the hon. Lady’s Government, where we got one scheme in 13 years.

Mary Creagh: That is an honourable intervention from the hon. Lady. I think it was The Guardian that reported that around 500 flood defence schemes are currently in abeyance. I am keen to hear from the Minister about the future of those schemes.
	In the last two years of the Labour Government, spending on flood defences rose by 33%. We know that flooding and other extreme weather events are likely to increase with global warming. We saw only yesterday the devastation that floods can cause, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the angler who was swept into the sea at Redcar and the two people who died in Ireland. We saw the heartache and the huge cost of flooding in Cornwall and Cumbria in 2009 and in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire in 2007. In this country 5 million homes are at risk from flooding.
	In opposition, the Prime Minister called for extra funding for the flood defences budget—hear, hear. Under Labour the budget rose, but the Under-Secretary has cut spending on this essential part of our infrastructure from £354 million in 2010 to just £259 million this year and every year until 2015, which is a 27% cut. Nearly £500 million has been taken out of flood defences.
	Communities at risk from flooding need a strong advocate arguing their case at the heart of Government. The Environment Agency tells us that the cost-benefit ratio of all flood defence schemes means that for every £1 we put in we get £8 back. That is money saved on public safety by the Home Office, on lost hours in the NHS, on disruption to transport and on the cost to the Department for Communities and Local Government of clean-up and re-housing people.
	The Environment Agency has told us that many of the flood schemes have been deferred indefinitely, but the Minister says that they have merely been postponed, so we hope that he will clarify that today. We call on him to bring forward the planned flood defence investment to create the private sector construction and engineering employment that the country needs and to ensure that towns and cities that need flood protection get it as soon as possible.

Diana Johnson: Will my hon. Friend say something about the effect of the cuts in flood defences? Constituents in areas that have been flooded are having difficulty in obtaining insurance. With the statement of principles running out in 2013, what will be the effects of that?

Mary Creagh: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. She has spoken eloquently and at length about the flood insurance deserts that have resulted from the chilling effect of the cuts. One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review, which followed the 2007 floods and affected my constituency of Wakefield, was that flood defence spending should rise by more than inflation every year. With inflation at 5%, that would mean an increase of more than 5% this year.

Rory Stewart: This is not a party political question. The Scots argue strongly that one of the best ways to deal with flooding is not to allow construction on flood plains. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that one of the real errors of the past 15 years has been our construction policy, rather than the amount of money put into flood defences?

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I did not hear him thank us for the flood defences that were put in place in Cumbria following the terrible floods there.

Rory Stewart: Thank you.

Mary Creagh: It was our pleasure. I know that Carlisle also suffered terribly. We cannot stop all development. The Thames Gateway development is happening on areas that are also potentially flood plains, but we must ensure that there is a joined-up strategy across Government and that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and the Home Office look at the real costs of flooding. At the moment insurers pay out, but it is not in their interests to stop flood events, because ultimately it is the reinsurers who pay the costs. We need to drill down and get a true account from across Government of the costs of flood events.

Neil Carmichael: Apart from the fact that we have £2.1 billion prepared for flood defences, does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite right that in my constituency, which was affected by the floods to which she referred, proper consultation is going on with the Environment Agency to deal with the Severn estuary and that a timely imposition of action is much better than something that is rushed? Furthermore, does that not show the importance of localism in such considerations?

Mary Creagh: It is clear that localism is absolutely vital and local communities should be able to have a say on developments in their area, but I am not clear how that links in with the Government’s national planning policy framework, which has undefined “sustainable development” at its heart. No one can say what “sustainable development” is.

Andrew George: I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Lady personally for any flood defences that have been built in my constituency over the past 13 years, but I will certainly do so if it allows me to continue my intervention, which expands on the point that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made. Do Labour Members agree that we need to tighten planning policy, particularly in relation to empowering the Environment Agency and giving it a veto in areas of flood risk and on flood plains?

Mary Creagh: We cannot allow all development to be killed off, but I agree that there is no point building and selling homes that are not sustainable, and that will be uninsurable, un-mortgageable and unfit for human habitation if they are hit by successive flood events.

Geraint Davies: With a reduction in the flood defence budget to pre-Pitt levels, does my hon. Friend agree that, in getting the deficit down, there is confusion between revenue spending and capital investment? Surely, capital investment means building up assets to protect people’s homes and businesses, but all the Government are doing is playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and futures.

Mary Creagh: That is a very good point, and there is also a direct impact on construction and engineering jobs, which are flat lining. For the record, by the way, may I make it clear that I was not requesting any personal thanks? All thanks should be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who is sitting next to me.
	Labour is the party of jobs and growth not just in cities, but in towns and villages throughout this great country of ours. We are standing up for fairness in the countryside, as yesterday’s debate about the Agricultural Wages Board showed.

Tony Cunningham: My hon. Friend mentioned Carlisle. The terrible floods that occurred in my constituency in 2009 created havoc and devastation, and led to the loss of life of a very brave police officer. Carlisle, on whose flood defences £30 million had been spent, was not flooded, but the estimate of the damage that would have occurred without those defences is between £70-odd million and £80 million. Surely, these cuts are only short-term savings.

Mary Creagh: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I read in Hansard the debates he had last year on the issue. The floods were devastating, and he played a huge leadership role in his community, bringing it together in the very difficult months that followed, when without a bridge it was split by the river.
	We want strong rural communities where rural businesses can sell their goods and services direct and file their accounts over the internet, and where families have the same opportunities as people in towns and cities. In government, Labour promised universal rural broadband by 2012 and universal high-speed broadband by 2015, yet this Government have said that universal broadband will come only in 2015, and only as long as cash-strapped councils, which have also seen their budgets cut by one third, stump up half the money.
	Broadband is essential if we are to tackle the social and financial exclusion that many in the countryside face. Speeding up rural broadband should not be part of a plan B; it should have been in the Government’s plan A. So, we call on them to speed up spending on this 21st century infrastructure in order to stimulate growth and private sector jobs in rural economies.
	Let me turn to carbon reporting. In January 2010, several Tory and Lib Dem Members wrote to Labour’s then Business Secretary, calling for mandatory carbon reporting. They included the current Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey)—all now Ministers. In that letter, they said:
	“There will be further economic benefits, accelerating the development of the low carbon economy and giving the City the backing it needs to become the world leader in carbon accounting and reporting.”
	What a difference two years make.

Sammy Wilson: I know that the Labour party has an obsession with carbon emissions, and indeed the Climate Change Act 2008 was evidence of that, but the motion is about job creation. Carbon reduction has led to an increase in consumer and business electricity prices, and to energy-intensive industries relocating outside the United Kingdom, with the British Air Transport Association saying only last week, “If we continue down this road it will affect the aviation industry’s competitiveness,” so will the hon. Lady explain how that fits with job creation?

Mary Creagh: It is not a matter of either/or. Unlike the Government, far-sighted companies have realised that reporting environmental impact helps them to reduce their costs, to improve their production processes, and drives innovation in products and services. That is where we were a leader in the green economy.

Luciana Berger: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and frustration that, on carbon reporting, proposals to display energy certificates were made in the Energy Bill Committee? That was called for by many large companies that want reporting of carbon emissions. We were frustrated because, despite saying before they came to government that they supported such a measure, Government Members
	did not do so in Committee, even though the proposal came from a Conservative Member, who had then to vote against it when we pressed it to a Division.

Mary Creagh: What a sorry tale. Again, the power of the Whips is demonstrated, even in Committee. That shows the collective amnesia on green issues that both parties in government are demonstrating.

David Mowat: Does the hon. Lady believe that if we had had more carbon reporting in the past 13 years we would now be higher than 25th of the 27 EU countries in terms of renewables? For the avoidance of doubt, and so that the House is aware, the two countries that we were ahead of in renewables in 2010 were Malta and Luxembourg.

Mary Creagh: We have leadership in offshore wind, and that was restated by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change today. I was at a business breakfast meeting with representatives of several large manufacturers of regeneration technology, and they said that the most important thing they want from the Government is certainty. I am not sure that climate change was at the top of our agenda 13 years ago, but we have realised over time that it is already factored in and that we will have changing climate over the next 50 years, so we must do something now if we are to preserve and conserve the earth’s resources. We have only one planet.

David Mowat: I agree with everything that the shadow Secretary of State has said, but I am concerned that after 13 years of the previous Government we were 25th of 27 countries, beating only Malta and Luxembourg.

Mary Creagh: When we were in government, we invested £60 million to allow wind turbine manufacturers to invest in our ports.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend should ignore the campaign against having an environmental agenda, because it is not against business. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills visited David Brown Gear Systems in Huddersfield—I am the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, although many people from Colne Valley also work there. We are now specialising in offshore wind power, which is providing jobs and high technology. There is real money in the environment, but the Government are retreating from their green agenda.

Mary Creagh: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
	I must tell the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that a green company in my constituency, Logicor, manufactures a product called a green plug, and has business angel backing to roll it out nationally and internationally. The plug fits to an iron or other appliance, and automatically turns it off after 15 or 20 minutes if someone leaves the room and forgets to do so. It has been shown that that can reduce carbon emissions in the home by about 50%. The company’s research demonstrated that what we all fail to switch off most often is our computer printer. I share that with the House and the nation for those who wish do their bit on climate change.

Bill Esterson: There is an opportunity to promote jobs and growth in the green sector by cutting the rate of VAT to 5%. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are several anomalies in this area. For example, installing heating controls attract a reduced rate of 5%, but replacing an old boiler with a modern, energy-efficient one does not. This is surely an opportunity to boost the economy and small business.

Mary Creagh: Indeed. Our proposal to reduce VAT to 5% on people’s improvements to their homes in making them more heat and energy-efficient is absolutely part of this agenda.

Luciana Berger: I am not sure where the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) got his figures from. Every year, Pew Environment Group brings out a report that measures countries’ investment in clean tech and renewables. It shows that in 2009, under a Labour Government, we were fifth in the world, and in one year alone, we have dropped to 13th—the largest drop of any G20 country, by 70%—as a result of the policy uncertainty under this Government and the lack of investment forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that drop and how it might impact?

Mary Creagh: I certainly do; once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Uncertainty is the thing that business likes least, but unfortunately uncertainty is what they are getting, in bucketfuls.

David Mowat: rose —

Mary Creagh: I give way to the hon. Gentleman for absolutely the last time.

David Mowat: The shadow Minister is very generous and I thank her for giving way for absolutely the last time. I got my figures from an EU website, so they are in the public domain. We are 25th out of 27, the two countries that we beat are Malta and Luxembourg, and that is a matter of public record.

Mary Creagh: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the useful publications from the European Union. I do not know which way he voted on Monday, but I am sure that that will be noted by the Whips. [ Interruption. ] Well, he is using the European Union to back up his argument, and that is very good news.

Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, the amount of opposition from Tories and Lib Dems to all applications for wind farms in their areas? Our Government would have made much greater progress—I can say that as a Minister who was there at the time—had it not been for such opposition to developing renewables.

Mary Creagh: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s role in government. Obviously, the decisions that we made in government paved the way for Mitsubishi and Siemens to think about relocating here. We do not want to drive energy-intensive industries or jobs overseas, because in many cases such industries are contributing directly to green development—for example, the steel that is pressed for offshore wind turbines that are manufactured in the UK. Companies in these industries want transparency so that there is a level playing field, showcasing the best and exchanging
	knowledge so that they can reduce their costs and their environmental impact. We pay tribute to the companies that have already done that work.

David Wright: I represent the seat that holds the birthplace of industry, and, some would therefore argue, the birthplace of global warming. These things are probably best done locally. Some local authorities have incredibly good partnerships with businesses. My hon. Friend will be aware that Ricoh, the technology company, has its European headquarters in my constituency. It is a fairly energy-intensive company, but it puts over 90% of its waste product back into the industrial process, internally or with partners. That is an example of where an energy-intensive business can do a lot for the environment as well.

Mary Creagh: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree that it is very important that these companies now look through the whole of their manufacturing processes. I will deal with the role of waste in a moment.
	In July this year, the Aldersgate Group, a collection of charities with large companies such as BT, PepsiCo and Microsoft, commissioned a report that provided an independent analysis of the impact assessment produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on mandatory carbon reporting. Taking just one of the options—option 3—Aldersgate found that DEFRA had overestimated the total costs by up to £4.6 billion and underestimated the benefits by £980 million. It said that DEFRA’s impact assessment had ignored wider behavioural change, product and service innovation and other strategic advantages from carbon reporting. It also states that DEFRA underestimates the benefits to companies over time, because the DEFRA model assumes that once companies have reduced their emissions in year one, they will not reduce them again over the following nine years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said, large companies such as Ricoh and Tata get very good consultants in every year to see how they can drive down their costs and environmental impact.

Mark Spencer: I know that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that these are complicated issues. I want to turn her attention to the food industry. Under her Government, the amount of food that this country imported rose exponentially. The carbon footprint of importing food, for example beef from Brazil or asparagus from water-stressed Mexico, is enormous.

Mary Creagh: That is a very good point. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about Labour’s “Food 2030” strategy, which looked at food security both nationally and internationally, on which the Department has been eloquently silent since the Government came to power.
	To return to carbon reporting, I cannot help but wonder whether the Department is deliberately inflating costs and reducing benefits as part of a go-slow on these areas. We know that that go-slow is driven by the climate change sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. When can we expect the results of the Department’s consultations? What are the Minister’s plans to help companies whose biggest environmental impact is not carbon-related, but water consumption, as in the case of the food industry, the amount of waste they send to landfill or the natural resources that they consume?
	The Government can drive green innovation in the food industry, our largest manufacturing sector, by using public procurement as they are the UK’s largest buyer. DEFRA is charged with overseeing the Government’s buying standards on sustainable food. Recent figures show that just 11% of Department for Work and Pensions food is sourced to UK animal welfare standards. In today’s Farmers Weekly, there is the extraordinary spectacle of a DEFRA Minister slamming his own Department for not meeting higher food standards, instead of standing up and taking responsibility for the poor performance. It was not like that when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was in government. I suppose that he wanted to get his criticism in before mine today. That is no way to treat the nation’s civil servants.
	Waste is big business. The sector employs 142,000 people and has a turnover of £11 billion. There are companies that collect waste, treat it and turn it into new resources and energy for the nation, as in the case of Ricoh that was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford.

Andrew Gwynne: I commend to my hon. Friend the partnership between the Labour-led Greater Manchester waste disposal authority and Viridor Laing, which has invested £630 million into new high-tech mechanical separation facilities, including one near the edge of my constituency in Bredbury in the seat of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). The partnership’s aim is to compost 50% of waste and to reduce by 75% the waste that goes from Greater Manchester households to landfill.

Mary Creagh: I pay tribute to that scheme, because it has created certainty not just for the council, but for employment in the area and it will drive down the council’s waste emissions. Biodegradable material decomposing in landfill generates 40% of the UK’s methane emissions and 3% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. In government, Labour trebled household recycling from 11% to 40% with schemes such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
	The Government’s recent waste review was a missed opportunity to boost recycling and create new green jobs. It was overshadowed by the in-fighting over weekly bin collections between the Secretary of State for chicken tikka masala and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Andrew George: Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that a weakness in the motion and in her waste policy is that they are based purely on measuring recycling levels? Surely it would be better to measure the success of policies such as those in the waste review using increases in waste, rather than in recycling, because it is theoretically possible for recycling and landfill to increase at the same time.

Mary Creagh: I am sure that would be a great idea in a perfect world, but we are living in the real world and need to comply with the EU waste framework directive so as not to incur huge EU infraction fines. I will come on to what that means.
	The three devolved Governments have all adopted an ambitious target of 60% of waste being recycled by 2020, and Scotland and Wales are aiming for 70% by
	2025. That leaves England with the weakest recycling target in the UK, which is the target for the UK as a whole to meet the bare legal European minimum of 50% by 2020. There is a bitter irony in that, because the more the devolved nations achieve, the less England will have to deliver to reach the UK target. House of Commons Library research conducted for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) shows that if the devolved nations meet their targets, England will need to recycle only 47.6% of waste by 2020 to meet its target.
	Last week I visited the Rexam can manufacturing plant in Wakefield. Rexam works continually to develop its environmental performance, focusing on objectives including reducing the consumption of resources—I think that was the point that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was making. Over the past year, the plant has reduced its gas consumption by a quarter and its electricity consumption by 30%. The cans, which are ones that we all drink out of, such as Coca-Cola cans, are manufactured to a width of 97 microns, the width of two human hairs. That is another little fact that I can share with the House.

Kerry McCarthy: Does my hon. Friend agree that supermarkets have a role to play in reducing waste, by reducing food packaging, by not encouraging people to throw away food on unrealistic sell-by dates, and by supporting projects such as FoodCycle, of which I have recently become a patron? That project takes unused food from supermarkets to community cafés and helps to feed people who would be unable to feed themselves. Does she agree that that is an absolutely brilliant project, and that supermarkets ought to be doing more to support it?

Mary Creagh: I do indeed, and I know that many of them are doing that. I have had a debate with the Co-operative about its naked cucumbers. [Interruption.] I pay tribute to charities that are working to recycle unwanted food.

Zac Goldsmith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: On naked cucumbers? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is so much chuntering going on that I cannot hear about these naked cucumbers through all the noise.

Mary Creagh: I give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).

Zac Goldsmith: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on the subject of inappropriate vegetables. I believe that up to 40% of fruit and veg is thrown away before it even reaches the shop. Does that not imply that the supermarkets should be doing a lot more to counter the perverse incentive on producers to provide superficially perfect but no more valuable produce? Should we not address that?

Mary Creagh: Supermarkets do encourage shoppers with deals that may not be as cheap as they first appear, such as buy one, get one free. However, people are now shopping much more carefully. We are hearing from supermarkets about the re-emergence of the cash shopper. People are coming in with a certain amount in their
	purse or wallet to spend, and not going over their budget at all. They are being much more careful about what they buy and what they consume or throw away.
	Of course, all food that is not consumed is a waste. It is a waste of water and of the carbon used in the logistics and transportation. However, there is some necessary food waste, such as apple peelings and banana skins, and we have to ensure that such waste is dealt with. Packaging businesses are taking action on the environment, so I feel the Government are really out of touch on the issue.
	Last week, 29 environmental charities published their “Nature Check” report, which showed that the Government were meeting just two of the 16 coalition environmental targets. Across the country, people who voted blue have started to question the Government’s environmental record. How can they abolish Labour’s regional housing targets and then change the planning system so that councils are left in chaos and confusion and local communities are left out of the mix? How can a Government who have cut £2 billion from the environment budget deliver a better environment, and how can a Government who believe in a small state and are anti-regulation deliver environmental progress for people and our planet?
	Next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Rio Earth summit, whose agreements were signed by the last Tory Government, and the 31st anniversary of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I hope that the louring figures of the Chancellor and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will not prevent the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from celebrating those landmark successes.
	In Labour’s vision for a green economy, value and growth will be maximised, and natural assets will be managed sustainably. It will be supported by a thriving low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector; environmental damage will be reduced; and a skilled work force will ensure that we innovate and keep our global competitive edge.
	In the coming autumn statement, we need a comprehensive green growth strategy from the Chancellor. Governments around the world are attracting investment in environmental technologies and the UK economy risks being left behind, but I am afraid that he has sapped green business confidence in the UK as a leader in climate change technology. Once again, he has shown that he is out of touch with business and driven by dogma. I urge the House to support the Opposition motion.

Richard Benyon: May I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh)for tabling this motion? I could not have wanted a better form of words in order to extol the virtues of this Government and to point out the manifest failings of the previous one. If I had a better handle on the usual channels, as I think they are called, I might have got a member of the Backbench Business Committee to produce just such a motion, because it allows me to discuss some of the excellent things that we are doing to make this the greenest Government ever.
	I start by apologising on behalf of the Secretary of State for the fact that she is not here. I know that many members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would have liked to be here too. However, there is a courtesy, which the Secretary of State feels very strongly, which says that Select Committees are very important for holding Ministers to account. We took that view in opposition, and now we are in government we intend to ensure that we make ourselves available when Select Committees wish to question us at length.
	With her customary generosity of spirit and her sunny nature, the hon. Member for Wakefield made a number of points about the Government, but perhaps failed to mention some of the good things. I hope she and the House will forgive me if I comment on the wording of the motion and on where we are moving forward. On environmental technologies, the hon. Lady did not feel the urge to mention the £3 billion that has been invested through the green investment bank, and she felt unable to talk about the vast amounts that that will generate in the private sector, or about the 26 million homes that will benefit from the green deal, which is the largest retrofit of infrastructure in our homes to benefit those on low incomes and make us a greener country.
	The hon. Lady did not talk about the fourth carbon budget, which so many groups recognised and praised us for achieving, or about Ian Cheshire of the Kingfisher Group, who will be leading business opportunities for green growth. In this financial year alone, £1.7 billion has been invested in environmental technologies, creating 9,000 jobs all over the country.

Graham Stuart: The Minister is acutely aware of how devastated east Yorkshire was by flooding in 2007. One of the most worrying aspects of the Labour party manifesto was a promise to cut capital spending by 50%. Will he assure us that flood protection will get the required investment, and that this Government are committed to flood protection in a way that the Labour party were not before the last election?

Richard Benyon: Before the election, the previous Chancellor announced that there would be a 50% cut in DEFRA’s capital spend. If Labour had won that election, it might have said that it would not cut flood protection, but in that case, what would it have cut? The hon. Member for Wakefield used the tired old argument that if we are to compare apples with apples, we must compare this Government with the last two years of the previous one. However, in this four years, there is an 8% cut compared with the previous four years. Bearing in mind the cuts across the Government and the appalling legacy that we were left, we have made flooding an absolute priority.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for giving way so early on. Will he correct the supposition of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) that the previous Government said anything about cutting flood defence spending? We did not say that. I shall put that on the record again. The Minister is right that we would have to find the cuts somewhere, but we never indicated that they would come from flood defence, because of the impact that would have on people’s businesses, homes and, potentially, lives.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman forgets that a 50% cut in capital spending has to come from somewhere. I entirely accept that he might have said there would have been no cut to flood defence spending if Labour had won the election, but nobody believes that it would have survived in its entirety.

Mary Creagh: rose—

Richard Benyon: I shall make some progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
	The hon. Lady talked about waste and recycling. It is reasonable for an Opposition to push a Government in certain directions, but they cannot just pluck a recycling target of 70% from the air, even though I would certainly aspire to such a target. However, recycling targets on their own are not a measure of how well a Government are doing. Instead, it is vital that we consider the matter in the round and that we push waste issues up the hierarchy. We cannot simply imagine a day when we could move to 70% recycling without getting the industry working properly with us to ensure that there are markets for recyclates and that we have an absolute plan, which is what we have done through our waste initiative.

Joan Ruddock: I remind the Minister that, in 2003, a private Member’s Bill that I introduced and which became an Act, imposed on local authorities a mandatory duty to recycle at least two waste streams, with a deadline of December 2010. What action did he take on the small minority of local authorities that did not comply last year?

Richard Benyon: We absolutely want to meet the EU’s waste reduction targets and the recycling targets, and we will certainly move towards 50%, but there are local factors to be considered.

Joan Ruddock: rose—

Richard Benyon: I am trying to answer the right hon. Lady.
	Local factors apply. These matters can, and should, be dealt with locally, and local councils should be held accountable when they fail. I shall come on to that in a minute.

Joan Ruddock: I wonder if the Minister heard me correctly. The duty is mandatory. What has he done with the local authorities that did not meet that mandatory target?

Richard Benyon: I shall get back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am sure she understands that this is not an area of my brief, but the responsibility of my noble Friend Lord Taylor. However, I shall certainly get an answer to the right hon. Lady’s question.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. The five or six matters that he outlined at the beginning of his speech were not DEFRA issues; the come under the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I am glad that he has been joined by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). Does he support his hon. Friend’s proposal to introduce mandatory carbon reporting as soon as possible?

Richard Benyon: We are moving towards it, but I shall come on to that in a minute.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for his intervention on flood defences. We are talking about an 8% reduction in spending. That is the fair comparison. I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield was being flippant, but it identifies a problem in her party—that people do not have to thank her or her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for money spent on flood defences. This is taxpayers’ money, and it is vital that that taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way. We want to ensure that, over the next few years, we spend taxpayers’ money in the most effective way, because, as the hon. Lady correctly pointed out, we get a good return on taxpayers’ money if it is spent in the right way.
	Our new partnership funding scheme will see the taxpayers’ pound going further. We are seeing efficiencies in the Environment Agency that mean that more houses and properties will be protected; and when we take our indicative list forward next year, I hope that many hon. Members’ constituencies will benefit from new schemes with new partnership funding that will bring benefits to those communities.

Tony Cunningham: I am not going to make a party political point; I want to look forward rather than backwards. Will the hon. Gentleman visit my constituency? Next month is the second anniversary of the devastating floods. If he agrees to come, he will get some criticism about the maintenance of rivers and streams, and so on, but he will also see for himself some of the superb work that local people have done.

Richard Benyon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have huge respect for the leadership that he showed at the time of the floods and for the work that he has done since to push me and my Department in various ways to improve the resilience of that community against flooding. I would be delighted to visit. I would also like to consult him on the development work that we are doing to create new internal drainage boards in the area to deal with precisely the issues that he has raised. I hope that we can ensure better flood resilience in future.

Mary Creagh: rose—

Richard Benyon: I will give way for the last time and then make some progress.

Mary Creagh: What I said was certainly not meant to sound arrogant; it was a debating point, made in jest to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), about the fact that his community had benefited from flood defences, yet he is now part of a Government who are cutting off those defences. Let me challenge the Minister again on the figures. He talks about an 8% cut to DEFRA spending, but can he name another area of Government accounting where spending has been calculated over the previous four years, instead of taking a baseline year which was the last year that Labour was in government? His figure of 8% is based on four years of previous spending compared with four years of future spending. No other Department is doing that; it is an example of funny DEFRA maths.

Richard Benyon: It is certainly not that; it is a sensible comparison. One cannot compare how the hon. Lady’s party behaved in government in the months and years
	preceding a general election with how it would behave now, when the Opposition have announced to the House how much they would have reduced spending. It is a tired old canard to keep up this talk about spending. She would be much better off looking forward and recognising that the new regime and policies that we are introducing will have a good effect.
	The important point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made about insurance is something that exercises us greatly. We hope to make an announcement in the near future about how we will take forward the statement of principles after it concludes in 2013.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend mentioned the Environment Agency earlier. I wonder whether he shares my concern about its failure to take action in my constituency against the discharge of raw sewage into a local brook and on to farmland. It has instead suggested a policy of co-operation and education with the group responsible for that behaviour. Will he agree to take an interest in this matter and resolve it quickly so that proper environmental protection is ensured?

Richard Benyon: I shall certainly look at that situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is vital that we take action to clean up rivers. We have put £92 million more into the budget to try to improve the quality of the water in our rivers. Anybody who is polluting should be penalised, and that is what the Environment Agency is for.

Rory Stewart: rose—

Richard Benyon: I will give way once more before making some progress.

Rory Stewart: In fact, we have not experienced capital cuts in Cumbria; rather, the Environment Agency is being considerably more flexible than it was six or nine months ago, responding to communities and clearing out gravel. The progress is good under the current Government; I would like to put that on the record.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The new partnership scheme will end the problem of communities failing, year after year, to get just above the line needed for their schemes to go ahead. There will now be clarity in the system, so that people can see exactly where they are on the scale and what needs to be geared up, by whatever means, for their scheme to get above the line.
	May I express my admiration, in a perverse way, for the nerve of the hon. Member for Wakefield for mentioning the word “broadband” in the motion and in her speech? That is masterful chutzpah. I could ridicule her for it, but part of me secretly admires it from somebody in a party that did so little in government. This country was at the bottom of every conceivable league table, and the previous Government had a scheme that involved raising huge amounts of money from some kind of telephone tax that nobody thought would work. This Government have made the issue an absolute priority.
	The hon. Lady is right to make broadband an issue in a green debate. Broadband allows people to work and learn from home, which reduces congestion. The Government also believe that this is a social inclusion issue, however. Broadband will assist people who are old, ill, mentally ill, out of work or on a low income, particularly those who live in remote communities, out of all proportion to any other factor in their lives. It is therefore absolutely right to include it in this debate, and I am very happy to talk about the investment that we are making, including the £530 million that is being spent through Broadband Delivery UK and the £20 million that has been geared up from DEFRA’s funds for the hard-to-reach in our most rural communities, as well as the £150 million recently announced by the Chancellor to assist the roll-out of mobile 4G access, which can provide coverage for broadband on mobile phone networks. That is also very good news.
	The hon. Lady also made some interesting points about the five-point plan for growth and jobs, but it would simply add to the scale of debt. How can we deal with the debt problem by adding to it? Nothing should add to our debt. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan would not be a way of gearing up jobs and growth in the green economy or in any other. As in so many areas, Labour Members have absolutely no credibility when they talk about the economy.

Kelvin Hopkins: Spending more, particularly in labour-intensive areas such as those we are debating today, would generate far more, through the multiplier effect, than the original investment, which we would get back through taxation.

Richard Benyon: I do not want to get into a long economic debate, but the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense. Green growth, if we do it right, could create jobs. I am afraid that I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that this is an entirely binary issue involving either growth or the environment. The Government firmly believe that the two go together, and our policies reflect that.
	The Government have an ambitious programme to protect and enhance our natural environment. Given the unprecedented financial difficulties, we cannot simply pull the financial levers to deliver change. Instead, we are committed to leading by example, being the greenest Government ever, mainstreaming sustainable development and enabling the value of the natural environment and biodiversity to be reflected when decisions are made. In the past 17 months, we have made good progress. We have a strong track record of environmental leadership, at home and internationally. We have published the national eco-system assessment, the first analysis of the benefits that the UK’s natural environment provides to society and to our continuing economic prosperity. This is ground-breaking research from over 500 UK scientists and economists, and the UK is the world leader in this regard.

Graham Stuart: Does the Minister foresee a time when natural capital will form part of the national accounts in the same way that other capital assets now do?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is prescient; I am about to come to that point.
	We have published the cross-government natural environment White Paper, the first in 20 years. It seeks to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision making in Government, local communities and businesses, properly valuing the economic and social benefits of a healthy natural environment while continuing to recognise nature’s intrinsic value. It set out 92 commitments, and we published an update on progress earlier this month. This has made us a world leader in this field.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister has just mentioned the natural environment White Paper. What does he think of the criticism of the White Paper, and of the “England Biodiversity Strategy: Biodiversity 2020”, by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which stated recently that
	“both are singularly lacking in implementation plans”,
	and that
	“we need more than fine words, we need a clear delivery plan and we need it soon”?
	Are the Government not simply giving us more greenwash, to give the impression that they are the greenest Government ever?

Richard Benyon: I think the hon. Lady shows a churlishness that is not in her character. She is usually among the most generous of Members. May I suggest that she looks at the natural environment White Paper and its 92 commitments and understands how we are valuing nature as part of how Government works. I am happy to quote the recent remarks of the Chancellor who said:
	“we need to know what the problem is before we can set about finding a solution. Better and fuller information is a crucial…step towards promoting environmental sustainability.”
	He was talking about accounting for sustainability, and getting natural capital hardwired into Government at every level has been a crucial part of taking forward this work through the natural environment White Paper, which I commend to hon. Members.

Andrew George: May I interpret the last intervention as a constructive contribution, indicating that the Labour party wishes to engage with the issue of biodiversity? Biodiversity standards fell during the 13 years of the last Government. All the parties need to work on the biodiversity strategy and, indeed, on the natural environment White Paper and attempt to improve those standards. That is what I believe all the parties should be doing in the forthcoming year.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let me say with absolute clarity that we want to reverse the decline of biodiversity in this country, not just because we value nature in its esoteric sense, but because we value it in its economic sense as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working with organisations like the RSPB and many others to try to ensure that the strategies we have brought forward are effective and workable. The indicators suggest that, with the right commitment, we can achieve this.

Zac Goldsmith: rose —

Barry Sheerman: rose —

Richard Benyon: I have promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but if he will forgive me, I will give way first to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that there are Members of all parties who care very much about the environment. I know we sometimes play games of point scoring, but one thing that the Minister should be very cautious about today is mentioning the name of the Chancellor. Members of all parties are worried about his recent remarks, as he seems to be undermining the green agenda that many of us thought was refreshing. The Minister, not us, brought up the point about the Chancellor.

Richard Benyon: I urge the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect on this subject, to look at exactly what the Chancellor is doing. He should look at the £3 billion that the Treasury has invested in the green investment bank and at the commitment we have made on a whole range of other issues. I can assure him that if he did, his concerns would be allayed.

Zac Goldsmith: Learning how to value ecosystems is a prerequisite for tackling the loss of biodiversity and the environmental crisis generally. I am not often accused by colleagues of sycophancy, but I do want to say that the work in the natural environment White Paper puts us ahead of almost any other country in the world. It is work that should be absolutely commended and celebrated across the board.

Richard Benyon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that Labour Members were listening to what he said.

Gavin Shuker: rose—

Richard Benyon: I will give way, but then I want to make some progress.

Gavin Shuker: The Minister is extremely generous in allowing interventions. I was initially trying to be well behaved and not to intervene on him, but I would like to echo the comment that the natural environment White Paper is fine in and of itself. There will be consensus about biodiversity—an issue about which I believe the Minister feels strongly—across the House. The key issue, however, is resource. There are many environmental and local groups applying to get funding to do the things that are set out in the White Paper, but only £7.5 million has been put behind it.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is talking about our nature improvement areas, and I would be happy to talk further to him about them and about the level of our ambition, which exceeds that of the previous Government. There is no money left, as someone once said when he left a note in a desk. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman of that, but we have made biodiversity and reversing its decline an absolute priority—both for this Department and the Government.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: I am sorry, but I really must make some progress.
	We will shortly publish our White Paper on water, which will set out how we want to reform the water industry and address the need for resilience to drought and climate change. A few weeks ago I stood on the bed of the River Kennet, which was as dry as the carpet in the Chamber. It is one of the “rivers on the edge” identified by the World Wildlife fund and is one of the most precious ecosystems in the south of England, although there are many more. Many Members represent constituencies where there are serious concerns about the decline of river quality. We will explain in the water White Paper how we seek to address the problem. We will consider not just the narrow issues involved in that particular stretch of water, but the entire catchment. We will take account of the calls on water, the loss of water from those precious ecosystems, and how we can manage the situation in future.

David Wright: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a bit of progress. Many other Members wish to speak in the debate.
	We are implementing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was mentioned earlier, and creating new marine conservation zones around our coast. Let me tell those who talk of the checklist that may have found its way into the motion that that item is flagged as a red, and is very much ongoing. We are adhering to the timetable that was set by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he was a Minister. We are determined to complete the task, and to create an ecologically coherent network of conservation zones around our coast.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: Is it a quick one?

Paul Flynn: It is a question that involves all the devolved Assemblies, especially the Welsh Assembly, where all parties are enthusiastic about marine development, but are hamstrung by restrictions that prevent them from organising even pilot projects in Pembrokeshire without the say-so of the national Government. Is it not time that the Government put their devotion to localism into action, and allowed the Assemblies to implement robust environmental policies?

Richard Benyon: I am afraid that I simply do not recognise that situation. We met Ministers from the devolved Assemblies this week, and discussed the way in which we are approaching the management of our seas and other policies, in the context of Europe but also nationally. I have worked closely with those Ministers, but I have heard none of them suggest that our parliamentary activities are limiting their ability to control their own environments.
	We have also successfully defended the moratorium on commercial whaling. Many may not consider that to be a massive issue, but our constituents certainly do, and I think that the House should recognise the excellent work done by DEFRA officials. I bear the scars on my back from attending two meetings of the International Whaling Commission, and the fact that the British Government have led in making that organisation fit for
	the 21st century is to our credit. We have contributed £100 million to protect international forests, and the Secretary of State is working closely with Brazil to secure the best use of those funds. As we build on the wonderful achievements made in Nagoya we see real benefits, and Britain’s standing in regard to those and other issues in the international forum has been enhanced in recent months.
	The Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries. The Treasury is committed to that, and has made important progress on a range of green initiatives. It has fulfilled the Government’s commitment to introducing a carbon price floor—a world first—as the basis of an innovative and economically ambitious green policy. This year’s Budget outlined the Government’s commitment to green investment, making £3 billion available for the green investment bank over the next four years. That will provide a lever for £15 billion of private investment in green technologies, a fact that was tragically missing from the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.

Hon. Members: You have only just come into the Chamber!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, but it is up to the Minister to give way if he wishes to do so.

Nicholas Soames: I apologise to the House and to the Minister for asking to intervene when I have only just arrived. I hope that the House will forgive me. I have been at a meeting of the 1922 Committee.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing. May I ask him to cast a particular eye over the very serious environmental problem of the gross over-extraction of water from rivers in general and in particular from chalk streams, which are waters of international renown and importance in this country? Will he tell us what level of extraction he considers acceptable?

Richard Benyon: I have already said that we will address that in the near future in the water White Paper. We are determined to comply with directives, because that is what we all have to do, but we are also more ambitious, in that we want our aquatic environment to be restored. That legacy will be difficult to achieve, but we can achieve it. We can secure huge improvements in biodiversity and ecosystems by just making some changes. It is not easy to change abstraction when large numbers of people rely on the water in question for their daily lives, but this can be done, and it will be done under this Government.

David Wright: What discussions has the Minister had with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers about the use of grey water produced in urban environments? That is of key importance. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made a good point about the level of water abstraction in the UK, but what we are not very good at—whereas other countries in the European Union and around the world are good at this—is using grey water in the built environment and recycling it.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are determined to address this issue from both ends of the pipe, as it were. We must look not only at abstraction and how we can incentivise water companies to share water with neighbouring companies, but at how we can incentivise and encourage individuals and households. A recent “Panorama” programme showed what can be achieved by households; by doing just a few things, they can reduce the amount of water they use and protect the environment.

Ian Swales: Does the Minister intend to look at building regulations, on which the UK is decades behind some other European countries, particularly in respect of the reuse of water?

Richard Benyon: We are consulting DCLG colleagues on that and a variety of different issues. I recently visited the Building Research Establishment at Watford. Amazing work is being done there on grey-water systems and how households can use much less water. We want to take those ideas forward, and we will keep the House informed as we do so.

Graham Stuart: On the green investment bank, may I point out that the largest manufacturing area outside London is Yorkshire? A quarter of the nation’s energy is produced in Yorkshire. Yorkshire stands ready—manufacturers, councillors, universities—to work with the green investment bank. Will the Minister give us more details of what exactly it will be doing, and what role Yorkshire can play in making sure we take forward the green revolution?

Richard Benyon: My experience in this House is that Yorkshire MPs believe that life starts and finishes in Yorkshire, and I am sure the green investment bank will find a way of investing in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and elsewhere. We will come to the House with more details in the near future.
	We were talking earlier about whether the concepts of green and growth were complementary or at odds with each other. We firmly believe they are complementary. The environment is an economic issue. Better management of natural resources is a financial and environmental opportunity. That is recognised by the Government and leading businesses. The waste review and the natural environment White Paper underlines that by putting resource efficiency and the natural environment at the heart of economic growth.
	Broader initiatives either already delivered or in the pipeline include electricity market reform, the renewable heat incentive and the green deal, which is the largest retrofit project. The Government also have an initiative, “Enabling the transition to a green economy”, which is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It brings together under one heading all of our ambitions and plans for moving towards a green economy.
	To help in that, we have set up the Green Economy Council, chaired by the Secretaries of State for BIS, DEFRA and DECC, which brings together more than 20 business leaders from leading businesses and business groups ranging from Ford to Waitrose. It provides an open forum for business to work with Government to address the challenges of creating the green economy and to facilitate growth opportunities.
	I wish to highlight two ways in which we are hard-wiring natural capital across government, and I referred to that in passing earlier. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to include natural capital in the UK environmental accounts. We are also setting up a natural capital committee—an independent advisory committee reporting to the Economic Affairs Committee—to provide expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital. We will be advertising for a chair and members this year.
	That develops one of the key objectives put forward by GLOBE International—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) are such able vice-chairmen for that organisation. We are also establishing a business-led ecosystems market taskforce to review the opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets, which value and protect nature’s services.
	I shall now move on to more specific issues. Earlier this year, we published our waste review, which is a comprehensive look at prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal, aiming for a zero-waste economy. It provides a broader picture than recycling targets and sets us on a path towards a greener, more innovative economy that values waste as a resource and an opportunity for jobs.

Joan Ruddock: May I make a suggestion to the Minister? He will know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is going to make millions of pounds available to local authorities to return to weekly collections, which they departed from in order to boost recycling. As the Minister will know, food is one of the main issues to deal with, so why does he not make representations to the Communities Secretary to say that money should be provided to those local authorities, such as my local Lewisham council, that have weekly collections but could expand, if they had the money, into food collections? That would have enormous benefits, including job creation.

Richard Benyon: The right hon. Lady is right to say that there are huge benefits if we get this right. We are working not only to deal with food waste—to encourage people to buy less and to waste less food—but to make sure that what waste food there is can be used in a constructive way. That is why our policies on anaerobic digestion have huge potential, not just for a municipal approach to this issue, but, for example, for the farming industry as a way of diversifying its business. So I assure her that we are talking, and will continue to talk, to people right across government to ensure a joined-up approach. I respect her knowledge on this matter.
	I spoke earlier about broadband, but I wish to emphasise that it is an absolute priority for this Government, as it will make the difference to our rural community. Our economy will be enhanced in a sustainable way for the future when we are able to have creative industries operating in remote parts of the country.
	We expect to be able to deliver better flood and coastal erosion protection to 145,000 households by March 2015. Despite spending reductions, no schemes have been cancelled. That is an important point for the hon. Member for Wakefield to understand. We expect to spend at least £2.1 billion on tackling flooding and coastal erosion over the next four years. We expect to
	spend this money better than it has been in the past and to do so in an open way, where local communities can really see how it is operating.
	On mandatory carbon reporting for companies, we have consulted widely over the summer on whether we should introduce regulations in this area. We need to be clear that these regulations are the best way forward, and the Secretary of State will announce the outcome to the House this autumn.
	To conclude, the Government are proud of what we have achieved thus far. We have been in government for only 17 months and there is a huge amount to achieve, but I am certain that we can achieve it. I ask the House not to support the motion, because I believe that what I have told the House this afternoon has shown that we are ambitious for more and that we can achieve enormous benefits for our economy by thinking in terms of the environment and the economy together. We hope to do that as we move forward.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that we are very short on time and I am going to introduce a five-minute limit?

Sheila Gilmore: We have heard a lot of words in the past 35 minutes, but, frankly, not a lot of substance. Being green is very fashionable these days and has been for some time. The Conservative party even changed the colour of its logo to green from blue, but if the verdict of many voluntary groups is correct, perhaps the party will have to change it back to blue again before long. At one point in my election campaign I stood at hustings that had been called by a group of charities and pressure groups on environmental issues and I was struck by how dull it was because there was apparently very little divergence of opinion.
	Of course, what matters is not what one says but what one does in practice, and I put it to the Minister that he could be more ambitious. For example, even on the simple issue of recycling targets, Scotland and Wales both have more ambitious targets than his Department. In Scotland, the target is to reach 60% by 2020 and 70% by 2025. I believe that if we do not have targets, we will not be inspired to make the effort. A lot has been said about targets by the Conservative party and it has become almost a mantra, or a statement as though it is a fact, that targets are somehow a bad thing. We hear far too much about how bad top-down targets are supposed to be, but targets have proven to be extremely effective in pushing people into reaching the ends they say they want. Without targets those ends might not be reached. It is disappointing that the examples set by Scotland and Wales are not being followed in the rest of the country. There is a knock-on effect for jobs and economic growth, because the kind of relatively small-scale industry that we all say we want can be built up on the back of better recycling.
	Another thing we have heard an awful lot about from the Government is the notion of nudge theory and how important it is to nudge people in a particular direction. However, I cannot understand how nudging people to revert to weekly bin collections, as my right hon. Friend
	the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has mentioned, can be a nudge in the right direction. It must surely be a nudge in the wrong direction. There should be financial support for better reuse and recycling. I do not want to say that recycling is the only thing because it is important to reuse and I would love it if industries here were encouraged to reuse bottles, for example, as happens in many European countries, rather than our simply smashing them into the recycling bin, fun though that is for children in particular. If we do not put investment in, rather than doing the opposite, we will be heading in the wrong direction.
	I did not really hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do about mandatory carbon reporting. We have had consultation, despite the fact that the parties in the coalition Government seemed very keen on carbon reporting when they were in opposition, and we have heard that there is going to be some sort of statement in the autumn. In my part of the world, although perhaps not in the warmer south-east, autumn is rapidly running out and it would be helpful to know what the Government’s real thinking is on this.
	Another thing that worries many Opposition Members and people out in the country is the Government’s dedication to things such as the red tape challenge. People worry that the concentration on that approach means that many very important regulations, which are needed, will be done away with. Government Front Benchers are shaking their heads but why take that approach and why make such a big thing of it? It is interesting that whenever anything goes wrong people call for more regulation, not less; we should not be throwing away very valuable environmental regulations.

Rory Stewart: I am a little troubled by the idea that the Opposition are presenting their policies to be quite so idyllic. My experience as a Cumbrian MP is that when one looks at a village such as Bampton in my constituency, what one sees is neglect. The past 10 years have seen, if I look to the left, that we suddenly have inedible grass on our hillside because the stocking levels have become too low. We have cows dying unnecessarily of bovine TB. We have an absence of affordable housing in our villages because of rigid planning regulations, and we have worse mobile coverage in Cumbria than in Kabul and extremely ineffective broadband coverage.
	In every single respect, the problem—this goes to the heart of the motion—has not been a lack of cash. The problem with the policies pursued has been that they have been too centralised in London, too inflexible and too black and white, and they have failed correctly to engage with communities and businesses.

Mary Creagh: I saw an interesting article a couple of weeks ago in Farmers Guardian or Farmers Weekly, which I read assiduously, about bovine TB. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that bovine TB in his area is not endemic in the badger population, and that it has come from the movement and transmission of cattle?

Rory Stewart: I shall take up that point, as it illustrates the four aspects that I identified. What we need and what the Government are providing is more courage, which goes to bovine TB, more work with communities, more ability to confront vested interests and more creativity.
	On courage with respect to bovine TB, what is the fundamental problem with bovine TB in Cumbria? It is not badgers, as the hon. Lady says. It is that for 13 years the previous Government were not prepared to talk honestly to farmers about the fact that the TB getting into our herds is coming from cattle movement. The answer should come from a better attitude towards movement and linked holdings, and a better attitude towards post-movement testing. Scotland has shown the example. We should have had the courage in areas such as Cumbria, which are still safe and where TB is not endemic, to have effectively moved that border south.
	That leads to the second element—working with communities. Again, the solution to the lack of affordable housing in our area, the solution to planning in our area, and the solution to renewable energy, particularly hydro-generation, lies in working much more flexibly with communities. We have just built 22 affordable homes in a rural area by allowing the community of Crosby Ravensworth to do its own planning. We are doing barn conversions up and down the east side of Cumbria by listening to communities who want houses for farmers’ children and have been unable to provide them because of rigid centralised planning regulations.
	There has been a failure to confront vested interests—a failure to confront supermarkets over contracts, a failure to confront supermarkets over planning, and sometimes a failure to confront certain elements and lobbies within the farming interests, which connects to the issue of bovine TB. The solution is not only to engage with communities and not only to be more courageous, but to be more creative, which brings us to broadband and mobile telephone coverage.

Graham Stuart: There is another problem—the direct and, I suggest, deliberate skewing of Government funding to urban areas in the name of deprivation, and away from rural areas. The average grant per head in rural areas is 50% less than in urban areas at the end of 10 years of Labour, average incomes are lower and the average council tax is 100% higher. People are poorer, they pay more and get less, and that needs to be put right.

Rory Stewart: I agree, but to continue to develop the point, it is not simply a matter of cash. The point is creativity. On broadband, the problem with the Cornish project implemented by the previous Government with enormous generosity was its inflexibility—£100 million spent on a region with half the surface area of Cumbria. Were we to try to pursue broadband on that basis, we would spend £42 billion in this country, instead of which, by using communities that are prepared to dig their own trenches and to waive wayleaves, and by pushing commercial providers to innovate in their technical delivery, whether it is cellular delivery, a point-to-point microwave link or a fibre optic cable, means that in Cumbria, with any luck, and touching wood, we should be able to achieve results at least as good as those in Cornwall for about a quarter of the price.
	The same is true of mobile coverage. The Ofcom target of 95%, which was set under the previous Government, was not ambitious enough and the costs to rural communities were extreme. By pushing up the
	coverage obligation, providing £150 million—not a very large amount—for building more masts and, most importantly, confronting the producer interest, meaning the mobile phone companies, which used to be their stock in trade, and compelling them to provide the coverage that they are reluctant to provide outside urban areas, we should now be able to achieve coverage of 98% to 99%.
	The economic benefit of all that to rural areas would be immense. There would be a GDP benefit to small businesses and health and education benefits for remote rural areas. All the health, prosperity and vigour that that would bring those communities would allow the delivery of exactly the environmental projects that the Opposition hold so dear. Prosperous and vibrant rural communities will allow farmers, who are often the people in whom we vest responsibility for the environmental projects, to deliver them.
	In conclusion, the fundamental mistake in the Opposition’s motion is not their objectives or what they feel ought to be done, but the methods they propose. I am afraid that those methods are dependent on a large deployment of cash, which is what I call the Cornwall approach. Instead, I believe that this Government have brought, as I am proud to see in rural Cumbria, the right focus on communities, the right creativity and the right ability to confront and to show courage, which hopefully means that the next time I look out of my window in my constituency, when I return there tomorrow, I will see affordable housing being built, broadband going into the ground, mobile coverage emerging, healthier cows and a more prosperous farming community that can support all the environmental targets we hold dear.

Nicholas Dakin: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has drawn attention to the supermarkets, because I am disturbed by the fact that the Government have failed to listen to the concerns of farmers and consumer groups, who want the groceries code adjudicator to have sufficient powers to tackle any abuses by major retailers. The Government have already delayed Labour’s plans for a supermarket ombudsman, and it now looks like a groceries code adjudicator will not be in place until 2013 at the earliest, about which some of my constituents are very concerned. If we addressed the problem of packaging and waste in supermarkets, and if supermarkets were as efficient as industries such as the steel industry in avoiding waste and recycling materials such as grey water, our situation would be much more sustainable.

Kelvin Hopkins: I very much support the idea of a supermarket ombudsman. Would the ombudsman also look at how supermarkets use their purchasing power to force down producer prices, particularly in British agriculture, and use the savings to inflate their profits rather than passing them on to consumers?

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Those are the concerns that a Government who are attempting to be the greenest Government ever should be addressing. Sadly, this Tory Government are out of touch on the environment. The rows over planning, the forest sell-off, a 27% cut in flood defence investment, delays to the water White Paper and a complete lack of
	ambition on recycling, which the Minister seemed almost proud of, show that the Government are behind the curve on environmental protection and green growth. Their claim to be the greenest Government ever has unravelled in just 18 months. The Tories have a plan for cuts, but no plan for the environment. DEFRA cannot even ban wild animals from circuses, which is not a great deal to ask.

Graham Stuart: I know that beneath the new Whip’s bluster there is a decent, honourable and reasonable person. One of the most pleasant aspects of the Minister’s speech today was that he did not once seek to describe or excoriate the performance of the previous Labour Government, which he barely talked about. He focused almost entirely on this Government’s policies. I ask the hon. Gentleman to throw away the Labour Whip’s handbook, despite his new job, and to be positive by talking about what can be done, rather than focusing endlessly on this negative stuff.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard. He has added “excoriate” to “prescient” and “canard” in the lexicon that we are being treated to this afternoon, but I fear that he was listening to a different speech from that which I heard.
	Twenty-nine leading conservation charities, in their “Nature Check” analysis published this month, have criticised the Government for failing to show leadership on the natural environment. In their fair and balanced conclusion, they say:
	“Whilst the Coalition has done well as a champion for the natural environment on the international stage”—
	so, ticking the box there—
	“at home its commitment to being the ‘greenest Government ever’ is in danger of being undermined. This assessment raises profound questions over the Government’s ability and willingness to deliver its green commitments, let alone to set out a long-term, coherent strategy to reverse biodiversity decline by 2020 and meet the needs of the natural environment alongside economy recovery.”
	So, when it comes to delivery, there are serious questions.
	Let us look at some key figures, which the RSPB has drawn from recent reports, on the level of the challenge. It states that
	“43% of priority habitat and 31% of priority habitats in England are declining; 304 species in England were red-listed in 2007, because of severe decline (more than 50% loss over 25 years) more would be added by an audit today; and less than 37% of SSSIs in England…are in a favourable condition.”
	That illustrates the challenge and need with which we are confronted.
	Business wants certainty to invest in green jobs and new technology, yet this Tory Government are failing to provide the certainty that industry needs—[Hon. Members: “Coalition.”] I tend to think of the coalition as a Conservative Government. That is what we see all the time when Members go through the Lobbies.
	There was much progress under the Labour Government, but there is still much more to make, and that is the challenge for a new Government—to pick the baton up and take the race forward. I am afraid that the Conservatives, however, threaten much of the progress that Labour made on green growth, sustainable
	development and the environment. They have left a trail of broken green promises. Since the time of the huskies, we have had almost a “For Sale” sign up over many of our natural assets, and support for public access and enjoyment of the countryside has weakened. Things to which people should have a right are challenged and are in danger because of this Government’s position.
	Labour created two new national parks, which is great witness of Labour’s commitment. The Tories, on the other hand, have cut funding by 28.5%, meaning that visitor centres will close, parking charges will rise and nature trails will be left unkempt. This is a serious time for the environment, so it is time for the Government to step up to the plate and deliver for it, both in this country and internationally.

Therese Coffey: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and vigorously to oppose this motion. I am delighted to see so many Opposition Back Benchers in the Chamber—three times more at its start than there were for the entire NHS debate. This is a welcome conversion, given that when elections to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee were held, not a single Labour Back Bencher put themselves forward for it until later rounds.
	I want to focus on recycling. I pop up every now and again when Opposition Front Benchers talk about it, and it frustrates me, because we can have as much aspiration as we like. I would love to lose 7 stone, and I did once before, but it does not mean anything if I do not actually deliver. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to recycling rates, which rose from 11% at the start of her Government to 40%. Let us have some Top Trumps in our recycling rates. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in her place, introduced a private Member’s Bill. The recycling rate for her council is 16.8%. In Wakefield it is 39.1%. In Ogmore, which is split between two councils, it is 33.5% in Bridgend and 36.9% in Rhondda. They are all Labour councils. In Luton it is 35.8% and in East Lothian is it 35.4%. The figures get better when we move to the shadow Department of Energy and Climate Change team. In the shadow Secretary of State’s constituency the recycling rate is 27.5%, In the shadow Minister’s constituency in Liverpool, it is 25.4%. In South Lanarkshire it is 40.1%—[ Interruption. ]
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asks whether there is a point to those figures. Yes, there is, because I am about to read out the recycling rates for Conservative-controlled councils, which actually deliver. The figures that I gave had in common the fact that they are mainly Labour-controlled, apart from one, which is a Scottish National party coalition.
	The rate in my council in 2010 was 51.8%, which leapt to 60.7% in the following six months. In Waveney, which the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) will visit on Friday—I am sure he will have a nice time there—it is 53.2%, so perhaps he will learn about the three-bin scheme that has been introduced to ensure that there are weekly food collections. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford should be aware that she can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government fund to ensure that those collections continue.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady claims that Waveney is a Tory area. At the moment it has a Conservative MP, but it had a splendid Labour MP for the previous 14 years, and it currently has a hung council, which is effectively Labour-controlled.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point is that aspirational targets may be set by the Government, but councils deliver. Waveney was Conservative-controlled when making that change, and is still Conservative-controlled.

Ben Gummer: Ipswich, which until May was run by a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, achieved more in the five years of coalition control in raising recycling rates than during nearly 30 years before that when it was Labour-controlled.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. I will continue with the Top Trumps challenge, and turn to those on the Conservative Front Bench. In Solihull the recycling rate is 40.7%; in South Cambridgeshire it is 53.6%. West Berkshire has the lowest rate of the areas represented by the Department’s Ministers, but it is still 40.2%. In the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) it is 43.1%. I forgot to mention Edinburgh, East where the rate is 31.5%.
	There is no point in a lot of hot air about aspirational targets if local councils do not deliver. We encourage our councils to get on with the programmes, to be innovative locally, and to ensure that they happen. Conservative Members are proud to go back to our councils and to talk about recycling rates of 60%, but on the other side of the Thames, where MPs are championing recycling, their councils are delivering very little.

Nigel Adams: Does my hon. Friend believe that the Labour party’s bin taxes would have encouraged recycling?

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a good point, and the answer is absolutely not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to nudge activity, but incentivising people to do the right thing has worked. The punitive measures proposed by the previous Government did not have that effect.

Sheila Gilmore: I would like the hon. Lady to put on record the fact that Edinburgh council has been run by a Liberal Democrat-Scottish National party coalition for the past four and a half years.

Therese Coffey: I said that there were SNP-Liberal Democrat coalitions, as is the case with East Lothian council.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke eloquently about rural broadband and ambitions. We all recall the 3G auction, when £22 billion was raised. If half of that had been used, we would have had fibre optics to every house in the country 10 years ago. That is the kind of ambition that we need, and will have, with this Government, who put their money where their mouth is with the £530 million to be spent within the next four years. The Minister may not have recalled that DEFRA also set aside a smaller,
	£20 million fund to enable communities, especially rural communities, to access broadband now and not necessarily wait until the 2015 target date.
	Other Members have talked about the green investment bank and the capital cuts. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, the Labour Government did not commit specifically to a reduction in flood defence spending. However, Labour Members who were Members in the previous Parliament voted in the 2010 Budget for a 50% cut in capital spending. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they had not specified where that cut would take place, but nor had they set out a comprehensive spending review. That lack of transparency is one of the reasons the previous Government were thrown out of office fairly decisively.
	I have not yet mentioned my favourite topic—coastal erosion. I am delighted to say that since the Minister came to my constituency and pulled people together, local environment agencies, Natural England and communities have been working together to ensure that, with community contributions, we have funded coastal defences in Thorpeness and the scheme in Felixstowe, and we are now enjoying the benefits of that. I am very proud to be on the Government side of the House, and I will vote most strongly against the motion.

Pat Glass: I want to focus on three aspects of the motion: the sell-off of forests, which, despite the Government’s U-turn and nice warm words, is still going ahead, including in my constituency; the Government’s nonsensical approach to waste; and the broken promises to communities up and down the country on flood defences.
	My constituency, like that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is a large rural constituency with many lowland and upland farms. It has two areas of outstanding natural beauty, and many acres of moorland and forest. What DEFRA does matters to people in my constituency, and so does what DEFRA does not do. In the countryside, we have had, in effect, 18 wasted months and a trail of broken promises. First, we had the proposal to sell off forests. Despite the Government’s U-turns and all the nice warm words that were said in this House, the Government are still planning to sell off 40,000 hectares of land over the next four years, some of it in my constituency. Ministers got away with it last time, but they will not do so this time. On Monday night, I listened to many impassioned speeches by Conservative Members saying, “I have to vote for this EU referendum because my constituents have been in touch with me and told me that I need to.” Their constituents got in touch with them in droves in response to the sell-off forests, and yet it is still happening.
	I accept that the mess that now exists around waste is not really of DEFRA’s making, but lies at the door of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—a man who seems to be obsessed with little other than bin collections. The Government have failed to set ambitious targets for recycling in England, and—this is a capital offence—they have stopped Labour’s ban on wood going to landfill, saying that they will think about it again in 2012. Frankly, that is not good enough. I live in the former Derwentside district council area, which is now part of Durham county unitary
	authority, and we left weekly bin collections behind years ago. There was a lot of upset at the time—people do not like change—but if Durham county council tried to reintroduce weekly bin collections now, people would be incredibly unhappy.
	I have three bins—one for waste; one for recycling, which gets emptied fortnightly; and one for garden waste, which is collected monthly—and guess what, I do not have rats and vermin skulking around my bins. My neighbours and I recycle everything we can, and we are proud of our recycling. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave us a long list of councils and their actual recycling levels as opposed to the targets. None of us in this House is responsible for that, but I am responsible for my own recycling and the waste that is produced in my house.

Therese Coffey: I understand that the hon. Lady and I cannot control the recycling rates of our councils, but it seems odd that people always complain to the Government when it is councils that deliver that service. My challenge is that we must encourage our councils to recycle as much as they can.

Pat Glass: I absolutely agree with that, but it ultimately comes down to us. I do not want weekly bin collections to be restored and nor do any of my neighbours. They are a waste of time and of our natural resources. There is virtually nothing in my waste bin; almost everything goes into the recycling bin. If I can do it, so can everybody else.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Lady agree that although recycling is important, it is third on the so-called waste hierarchy? Reusing resources and reducing the number of resources that we use in the first place are also critical. On those matters, we need Government action as well as local authority action.

Pat Glass: I absolutely agree. We need a proper strategy on recycling and waste, and we need to stop obsessing about bin collections.
	On flood defences, I know that DEFRA has taken a massive 30% cut and that some of that has been passed on to flood defence schemes. The Government have rejected the Pitt report on improving flood defences and have cancelled major schemes that were scheduled to take place in towns and cities such as York, Leeds and Morpeth in Northumberland. That will cause massive concern not only for people who have suffered from flooding in the past, but for anyone who lives in a city or town that had hoped to be included in the flood defence scheme. We all acknowledge—even the Government acknowledge—that the flood risk is growing and that flooding will affect more communities across the country in the future.
	In the summer, I was visited in my constituency surgery by constituents who live half way down Blackhill bank in Consett. They came to see me about flooding. Anyone who knows Consett will know that it is 885 feet above sea level. According to Wikipedia, it is the second highest town in the country. We have never had flooding in places such as Consett before. Those people told me that it is not only water that comes through their house,
	but black water—sewage. It can take up to two years for home owners and businesses to get back into their properties.
	Despite that, flood defence schemes have been cut. That means that many home owners and businesses will no longer be able to get insurance when Labour’s agreement with the insurance industry runs out in 2013, because that agreement was based on continued Government investment in flood defences, not on cuts.
	The Government’s strategy on the environment is simply not working. It is not supporting the countryside, it is not delivering for the majority of people in this country, and it will leave communities that are vulnerable to flooding to fend for themselves.

Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on her contribution. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this debate, but this subject does not lend itself to the kind of partisan debate that she was hoping for. Frankly, what we should be doing in this Chamber is forming a cross-party alliance of those who agree with this agenda. There are philistines on both sides of the House who do not agree with it—the climate change deniers and those who believe that environmental policies get in the way of economic development. There are also people on both sides of the Chamber who want to engage in a more consensual debate.
	This subject does not lend itself to partisan debate because the political cycle does not match the cycles of the natural environment or the investment timetables that are necessary for the delivery of policies such as renewables programmes and broadband development. To prejudge the success or otherwise of the Government after 18 months, when it is far too early to decide whether the natural environment of the UK is better than it was under the previous Government, is frankly a poor partisan point that does not advance the debate.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend makes an important point about having a cross-party approach to the environment. In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) took two pieces of legislation through the House, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, that had cross-party consensus and that led to real improvements in the environment.

Andrew George: Absolutely, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It takes me on to another point that I wish to make, in response to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place. He was bemoaning the lack of progress on the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which has cross-party support.
	I have to declare an interest, as for the past five years I have chaired the grocery market action group. I have been urging and seeking cross-party support for that Bill. When I started out I was entirely on my own, but I am pleased to say that both the previous Labour Government, latterly, and the Conservatives just before the general election came on board and recognised the
	importance of ensuring that we get fair dealing in the grocery supply chain. Although that is not directly relevant to our debate on the environment today, it is directly relevant to other matters that Members have raised, including recycling. On that issue and others, we should form cross-party support.
	In spite of the very limited time that we have, I cannot allow this moment to go by without responding to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), since he mentioned the great nation of Cornwall and the investment strategy for broadband. It has to be said that there are more than 500,000 people in Cornwall, and its population may not be as dispersed as that of Cumbria. He may well be right that we will be paying Rolls-Royce prices for something that we could be getting a little cheaper, but if the policy is advanced in one rural area, lessons can be learned that will benefit other areas later.

Rory Stewart: That is a very fair point, and it is absolutely right that Cornwall got a good deal at the time when it got it. However, the real lesson of that is that we need flexibility and pilots, with one county at a time learning the lessons so that we can drive down the costs and force suppliers to do more and more as they move from Cumbria to Northumbria and around the country. What I said was not intended as a criticism of Cornwall.

Andrew George: No, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me on the matter. Certainly it is not possible to have fibre-optic cable to a cabinet within yards of every home in dispersed rural areas, so we need to ensure that we have an investment profile that allows the use of satellite broadband in certain circumstances. We are learning lessons from the Cornish example, and we have had the benefit of European convergence funding to take the matter forward.
	I wish to touch briefly on three more matters—waste, green growth and sustainable development. The Government have rightly put in place a waste review. It is an iterative process that is progressing—perhaps too slowly, but it is certainly progressing. It provides a framework for those who want to engage in the process, as I encourage Members of all parties to do, to make constructive proposals to enhance the Government’s intention to achieve a zero-waste economy. That means sending zero to landfill.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: I do not think I will get any injury time, but I will give way.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman and apologise for that. Everyone is committed to recycling, but recycling itself obviously costs money. How does he see the balance between the necessity of recycling and the cost factor?

Andrew George: I see recycling as being part of the green economy, in which jobs are created and there is a massive benefit to the economy in general. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Wakefield, I was simply saying that an obsession with one narrow silo of the waste strategy—the measuring of recycling by the proportion or volume that is achieved—is entirely wrong
	in an economy such as the UK’s. The amount of waste recycled is a helpful indicator, but it is possible to have increased recycling and increased landfill at the same time. I do not think is necessarily the measure by which we should judge ourselves, and I encourage Members to consider that carefully.
	On green growth, it will take a long time to get the investment profile required to achieve the improvements that we are discussing. We should have a green economy that drives development in this country. The previous Government started that process, and the present Government need to continue it. RenewableUK is identifying itself with a survey out today that says that 80% of its members plan to hire extra staff within the next 18 months, so people are growing in confidence in that regard.
	Finally, it is important that we mainstream sustainable development issues. The Public Bodies Bill is well intentioned, but if the intention of planning policy is to promote sustainable development, we need to re-establish the Sustainable Development Commission.

Geraint Davies: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate as a former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales—for the five years before coming into Parliament, I was charged with adapting Wales’s flood defences to climate change.
	The big picture we face is of global climate change giving rise to a reduction in the land mass of the globe, with the population increasing from 6.8 billion to 9.5 billion by 2050, which will mean food and water shortages, migration and conflict. The Kyoto protocol will come to an end in 2012. The Americans seem to want to let it die on the vine, and the Chinese and Indians want to keep it going, but it is incumbent on us to have a strategy that focuses economic growth along a green trajectory.
	On that point, some of the Government’s moves are disappointing. They did not support Sheffield Forgemasters, which could have been a global player in nuclear provision, and they did not support Bombardier to get a foothold in exports, which would have given us a green footprint elsewhere while supporting our economy. The big debate in the Chamber is between cuts and growth, and there is a lot of talk about how Labour left the cupboard bare, but we know from the numbers that a third of the deficit was for investment beyond earnings, and that the rest was for the banks. There should be no apology for that, because that is what stimulated growth.
	We have now got rid of growth. The Chancellor announced that half a million jobs would be lost, so people in the public services started saving instead of consuming, and people in the private sector stopped recruiting and investing. The deficit is now £46 billion higher than it would originally have been. That is why the Labour party has proposed a five-point plan on VAT, national insurance and so on. The important part of that plan in this debate is investment in capital assets in flood defences.
	The devastating floods in 2007 and Lord Pitt were the engine for the new trajectory of investment in flood defences, which would have provided jobs and capital assets—it would not have been money down the drain. That would have encouraged inward investment and protected neighbourhoods, businesses and homes, so I
	am saddened that it has been reduced by 27%. We are spending £354 million this year, but that will go down to £259 million. Having worked with the Environment Agency, I know that it would have put that money to good use.
	Land is an asset not just for carbon capture and generating oxygen but for tourism, but the Government will sell off 15% of our woodland. Sustainable development is the centrepiece, constitutionally, of the Welsh Assembly Government, but it is seen simply as a healthy option in England. If we are to grow our way out of deficit with a green trajectory, we need to look at emerging consumer markets in the developing countries, such as China or India or those in south America, and reconfigure our export offer around green technology. That does not seem to be happening and the Government do not appear to be proactive.
	Big companies are developing products. Tata Steel, near my constituency, is developing a new seven-sheet steel that generates its own electricity and heat; and Boeing in north Wales is introducing new carbon planes, which will be 30% more fuel-efficient. The Government must provide an infrastructure and regulatory system that encourages such innovation, not just to take our economy on a green trajectory but to project us into a global leadership role. I do not see that happening.
	It is fairly self-evident that global energy costs will continue to escalate, because the rate of economic growth in China, India and south America means that those countries and areas will consume more of it. Those increases in energy prices, although painful, create new and profitable green technologies. The Government should not take such a laissez-faire approach to that. I fear that when, for instance, the Chancellor scoffs at the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, it sends a signal that he does not take green investment seriously. The risk for Britain is that the Tories will blindly stumble over the green shoots that could be the future of jobs and growth in Britain.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great pleasure to address the House in this fascinating debate, which has drawn two interesting distinctions between the Government and the Opposition: between statism and localism and between non-joined-up and joined-up government. Several policy areas prove those points.
	First, I want to talk about the green economy and what is really happening out there. The shadow Secretary of State painted a picture that did not describe the situation in my constituency or, I believe, beyond it. First, we have, or will have soon, the green investment bank, which is a signal change and a very good idea. It will have £3 billion to invest and will be able to capitalise in 2014, which is a fantastic step forward. Ironically, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) referred to the Dreamliner aeroplane, a fantastic achievement, which is just about to start flying right now and which has created huge numbers of jobs in this country, because we supply 30% of the products.
	Those products are, by definition, along the lines of green investment, because they are all about composite materials, lighter materials and so on, which is great
	news. Many businesses in my constituency are working hard and successfully at developing new innovation and technologies to tackle issues relevant to the green economy, and I am really proud of that. I encourage them, instead of distracting them with assertions that things are not going well and so forth. Of course, we could improve banks’ performance in investment, but we should still salute what is actually happening. There are countless firms in my constituency that I would happily take the shadow Secretary of State to see, if she so wished.
	Another important but neglected issue is the green deal, which will make a huge difference to 22 million homes and which is provided for in upcoming legislation. It is extraordinarily important and will help many people to reduce their energy bills and improve their quality of life because their homes will be better places to live in. That, in itself, will stimulate growth and promote more investment across the piece, which is something that we should all welcome. Certainly, businesses in my constituency are pleased that the green deal is about to be launched.
	I talked about localism versus statism. Let us explore that with reference to broadband. I do not know what world the shadow Secretary of State was describing, but the one that I found when I was first elected in Stroud was not one where broadband was particularly accessible to anybody in rural areas in my constituency. Things are improving now, first because of the bold decision of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who came to my constituency and helped to launch a fantastic campaign to promote further investment in broadband. His wisdom was evident in a pilot scheme in Gloucestershire aimed at getting a grip of the technology and investment—£8 million—needed to start promoting broadband.
	The key point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) referred, is that we have to be local and flexible. That is the essence of how we will get more and better broadband in Gloucestershire. I talked about joined-up government versus non-joined-up government. The Minister, who has responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries, came along to the Environmental Audit Committee and proved that we were joined up by sitting next to the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for development and cities. They were both talking about the national planning policy framework.

Fiona O'Donnell: The hon. Gentleman talks about joined-up government, but the Government’s obsession with the red tape challenge means that the Department for Transport has failed to regulate ship-to-ship transfers of oil, which is leaving wildlife and delicate marine environments such as those in my constituency at risk. How is that joined-up government?

Neil Carmichael: Doubtless the Department for Transport will deal with that. We have a new Secretary of State, and I look forward to seeing what she does. However, the fact is that joined-up government is important.
	The story that I was telling hon. Members about is still relevant, because the Minister was talking about the national environment White Paper—which has been endorsed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and so on—in parallel with the
	national planning policy framework. That is absolutely excellent and is a true demonstration of effective joined-up government helping to deliver polices that make a difference across rural areas. I welcome that. In the past, we saw a Labour Government who were “siloed”; in the future, we see a coalition Government thinking in terms of Departments working together to produce policies that make a difference.
	In an intervention, I talked briefly about flooding, but I want to emphasise the importance of localism with reference—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Unfortunately the clock was not going down as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, so he has had more than his time. I would therefore like him to conclude his remarks.

Neil Carmichael: I want to draw the House’s attention to the fantastic work that Water21 is doing to promote flood attenuation in the Slad valley. That is a classic example of good localism, good foresight and how flooding can be dealt with in a different, more imaginative way. It is a tribute to the people of Stroud and every—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I call Caroline Lucas.

Caroline Lucas: I am gratified by the extent to which successive Governments have sought to brand themselves as green—after all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. However, I also see it as part of my role to scrutinise the authenticity of any promises made and, most importantly, to inquire whether fine and noble rhetoric is backed by fast and ambitious action.
	It is important to say at the outset, as the Green party always has, that environmental policies cannot be just bolted on to business as usual. We have always said that to judge the greenness of a Government, we should look not so much at their environmental policies, but at their economic programme. If a Government’s economic policies are simply about promoting more and more conventional economic growth based on the production and consumption of yet more finite resources, it does not really matter how many green trimmings they add to their manifesto. The direction of travel will still be fundamentally unsustainable. Judged by that measure, sadly not one of the main parties has come close to understanding the true nature of green politics.
	Therefore, although I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen the Government’s green record as the subject for today’s debate, and although I am heartened by the commitment that I have heard in the Chamber today, it is interesting to contemplate why those aspirations, commitments and statements are not made when we discuss the Budget or growth, for example. In those debates, all the “business as usual” economic arguments are trotted out, as ever. We do not marry up all the nice words about the environment that we have heard today with the arguments that we hear in those economic debates, which is when it really matters. To say that this shows remarkable inconsistency would be a kind way of putting it.
	Over a year ago the Prime Minister pledged that this would be the greenest Government ever. The first thing to say about that aspiration is that it is sadly not particularly ambitious, given Labour’s poor record on
	the environment in the preceding 13 years in office. At the end of that Labour term, the UK was getting more of its energy from fossil fuels than in 1997, when Labour came to power. Everyone rejoices in a sinner who repents, but one cannot help but think that, at best, Labour’s criticism of the Government’s record today shows an almost heroic degree of collective amnesia.
	It is significant that one of the first acts of this Government, who aspire to be the greenest ever, was to abolish the very body that could have had a role in judging whether they could achieve that. I refer, of course, to the Sustainable Development Commission—I support the comments that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made about that. As a critical friend, the commission was a vital in providing well-informed scrutiny of Government policy. The commission also saved the Treasury around £300 million over 10 years, against running costs of just £4 million a year. The scrapping of that commission undermines the Government’s assertion that they are committed to green issues. It is also the first of many examples of ideology trumping common sense, economic sense and environmental sense.
	Much has been said today about the green investment bank, and of course it is a good idea to have such a bank. It is very badly named, however, in that it is not very green and, so far, it is not even a bank. The Government are actively considering using it to subsidise nuclear power, and its wings are being clipped from the outset through insufficient capitalisation and no initial borrowing capacity for several years at least.
	I could refer to many other issues, but I would like briefly to mention the complete chaos that the solar industry is now in, thanks to the way in which the Government keep moving the goalposts in relation to the level at which the feed-in tariffs are going to be secured. That is a tragedy not only for the environment but for some of the fantastic solar industries in this country that could be at the forefront of solar power internationally. Because the Government keep changing their level of support, however, the industry has been left in great confusion.
	In conclusion, I shall return to my first point. Slavish adherence to the same economic model that has created the economic crisis and the climate crisis will not empower us to build a sustainable future and make the transition to a zero-carbon economy, yet that is what the Government and the Opposition are relying on. Yes, efficiency gains can help, and yes, technology will have a vital role to play, but there is a real risk—which has not been addressed today—that, with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class around the world, those efficiency and technological gains will be undermined by the overall level of net growth. That means that behaviour change will have to be a far greater part of the solution when it comes to adopting sustainable development, yet the dogma that we can carry on with business as usual provided that there is more and more economic growth to get us out of this economic crisis—never mind the long-term environmental, social and economic consequences—is barely questioned by politicians. Professor Tim Jackson states:
	“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must.”
	We must—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

David Mowat: I should like to associate myself with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that this should not really be a political subject, but it does tend to become one. I also want to associate myself with the Minister’s comment that the Opposition had shown chutzpah by holding a debate on green leadership and growth. Given that they have decided to do so, however, it is reasonable to examine what has happened over the past decade and a half, and what kind of legacy Ministers have taken over in relation to green issues.
	I want to be fair to the Opposition. They have used the word “leadership” a number of times in the debate, and I have been looking for examples of Labour showing leadership in the past 15 years. It has shown it in one area: that of legislation. No one could have passed more legislation on this subject than Labour. The Climate Change Act 2008 places on us a requirement to reduce the total of our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That could be broken up in a number of ways, involving, for example, 25 new nuclear power stations—I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would agree with that—or 40,000 wind turbines. It is a hugely ambitious target. Equally ambitious was the way in which the Labour Government signed up to the EU 20-20-20 directive in 2009.
	That was where Labour showed leadership, but, having done that, what did they achieve? Where had they got to by 2010? Labour Members need to understand that we are 25th out of 27 in the EU in terms of renewables, as I pointed out earlier. It is possible that that statistic could be subject to challenge, however, because it was based on provisional figures. It puts us slightly ahead of Luxembourg, but it is possible that we are not. Perhaps we are in fact 26th out of 27. That is the legacy from the last Government that we have had to pick up and run with. That is the starting point.
	Even less impressive were the numbers that came out, right at the end of 2010, on the total amount of energy produced in this country from non-fossil fuel sources, by which I mean renewables, hydro and nuclear. It fell by 10%. That was the legacy we were left with. Chutzpah is not even half of it. We now have to pick up from that position.
	I do not agree with all aspects of the energy policy of my Front-Bench team. I would like us to go more quickly down the nuclear road, but I agree that at least we have a green policy that can be looked at and criticised and that we can try to improve. I do not think that we had that previously. The green deal is massively important. The Climate Change Act 2008 implies a reduction of our total emissions by 2050—either with or without the economic growth that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not want us to have—of around 40% to 50%. The green deal provides the only reasonable way of achieving that. The green investment bank and the energy market changes that we are going to make are hugely important.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The green investment bank, to the tune of nearly £3 billion, is a great step forward. I also think that the green deal will enable those who have not got their homes insulated with solid wall insulation to get that done under the new
	scheme. That will help many more people to insulate their homes, which will be good not only for the environment but for the families concerned.

David Mowat: I agree.
	I did not mention the carbon floor price. Having sat through the debate, it remains unclear to me whether Labour Members support it or not.
	All these matters are important, and I am proud that the Government whom I support are trying to get us higher up the league table from 25th or 26th out of 27 within the EU. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us where we hope to get to by the end of this Parliament? If we start at 25th, are we heading for 20th, 15th, 10th, fifth or what? It would be interesting to hear, as we have an awfully long way to go.

Kerry McCarthy: I want to start by taking issue with a couple of Members who said that we should not get political about this issue. First, I would say, “Try telling that to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate and the Chancellor of the Exchequer”, who seem to be in open warfare in today’s newspapers. Furthermore, this is one of the most crucial political topics we face, and if we wrap it all up in warm words and a coat of greenwash without questioning or challenging some of the progress, we will be in danger of letting the whole agenda slide.
	In the limited time available, I would like to focus on a couple of issues. A number of Members have commented on the “Nature Check” survey, which gave the red light to the Government on a range of issues, three of which deal with planning. There is real concern that the Treasury is dominating and overriding the environmental agenda in respect of planning issues. The Budget of 2011 said that
	“The Government will introduce a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’.”
	We also know that the Chancellor said at the Conservative party conference in Manchester:
	“We’re not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business.”
	He believed that, rather than leading the way in pushing a green agenda in Europe, we should only rise to the standards of other European countries, which I think is entirely wrong.
	Simon Jenkins, the head of the National Trust, gave evidence to a Commons Committee the other day, saying that the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the planning reforms, while The Daily Telegraph, which one would expect to be on the side of the Conservative party, talked about an elite forum of property developers who were charging key players in the industry £2,500 a year to set up breakfast, dinner and drinks with senior Tories. This club raises £150,000 a year for the Conservatives. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that in his summing up, and explained what influence is being exercised. We have seen the influence of people behind the scenes in health and defence policy and other aspects of the Government’s agenda.
	One subject that has not been mentioned much in the context of planning is the new biodiversity offsetting regime. In Bristol, there has been real concern about the
	local authority’s failure to spend section 106 money. It is estimated that between £10 million and £12 million that should have been allocated to community projects, infrastructure and schools is sitting in the council coffers. As a result, not only will environments that have evolved over centuries and could be described as part of our natural heritage be replaced by artificial new landscapes, but there will be no means of ensuring that the offsetting actually happens and is maintained for many years to come. We need to know whether the regime will be effective, or whether it is just an excuse for developers to be able to destroy natural habitats and the environment. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out, we need a system that filters out habitats that are irreplaceable, as opposed to those that can easily be created elsewhere.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) expressed concern about the lack of certainty in relation to feed-in tariffs. Support has already been scrapped for large-scale projects, and it is rumoured that the Government will announce a halving of tariff rates tomorrow. Let me give an example. The Royal Bath and West of England Society was due to develop a solar photovoltaic park, for which it had already received planning permission and which it wanted to use to kick-start a rural regeneration project that it expected to create about 1,500 jobs. It had structured the project on the basis of the expected revenue from profit on the feed-in tariffs. Critically, it was interested in a loophole provided by the Department for Energy and Climate Change that would have allowed the project to proceed if it plugged in 10% of its electricity generation by 1 August 2012. Thankfully, it had not made a decision before the deadline was moved to 18 October 2010. The chief executive, Dr Jane Guise, told us today that “shifting goalposts” were making it impossible to invest in and plan for the future. She also wondered why the Treasury was involved at all.
	I am afraid I have no time to give the House any more information about that, but I urge Members to talk to people who had spent months planning a project that would have brought huge benefit to the local community, but is now being—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This has been a very good debate in which Members in all parts of the House have made powerful and passionate points. One powerful point made by the Minister, with which I strongly agreed, concerned the welcome news of the publication of the national ecosystems services. I know that he will want to commend that worthy project, and to recognise that it was inspired and developed by Labour. I congratulate him on having brought it to fruition.
	The Minister mentioned the fourth carbon budget, which Labour developed under the Climate Change Act 2009. It, too, is welcome, but there are two little opt-outs, to which the Chancellor referred in his review. We shall see how that proceeds.
	I commend the Minister for his work with the International Whaling Commission. It is good to know that that work is continuing, and I know that he is
	committed to it. We have always had a cross-party view on that, and it I am pleased to note that he is still standing firm.
	I think that every Member present will welcome the £100 million to protect the rainforest. Curiously and coincidentally, the Minister planned to raise the same amount from selling our forests.
	Having heaped praise on our motion, the Minister then said that he would oppose it. I assumed from his praise that he would support it; perhaps he will change his mind.
	The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a very good speech. He spoke well about the need for a focus on bio-security and cattle movements as a solution to the problem of bovine tuberculosis, and criticised the “Cornwall approach”—much, I think, to the consternation of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
	The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) welcomed the number of Labour Members attending the debate, as do I. The Chamber has been full of Labour Members today. In contrast, at one point during yesterday’s debate on the important issue of the Agricultural Wages Board no Conservative Members were present, and then just one was present.
	I must correct the hon. Lady on one point. Her long litany of Labour councils included my local council, Bridgend. Bridgend’s recycling rate is not 33%. It was 33% at the end of the rainbow coalition of Plaid Cymru, Tories and Liberal Democrats, but when Labour took control it rose to 51%, the highest in any local authority in Wales. I suggest that the hon. Lady check her figures and ensure that they are up to date. As for the average rate in Wales, it is 45%. She might wish to correct the record at some point.
	The hon. Member for St Ives said it was too early to judge this Government, as they have been in office for only 18 months. I refer him to the report by 29 wildlife and countryside charities condemning this Government’s record so far.
	I welcome the concept of cross-party engagement. When I was in the Government, we held two cross-party flood summits to work through the issues. That has not happened under the current Government, and I ask the Minister to invite my colleagues to attend such meetings. [Interruption.] He says that has happened, and I accept his assurance, but it is not my understanding.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) painted a very rosy picture of the Government’s green record, but we beg to differ. He talked about the green deal; we hope for the best, but we fear the worst.
	I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for acknowledging my party’s leadership on groundbreaking national and international legislation and obligations, and I extrapolate from his remarks on the slow progress made in the previous decade on renewables, and especially wind, that he supports the building of more onshore wind farms to meet the renewables obligations. I must say, however, that not many of his colleagues share that view.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) questioned the Government’s commitment to the green agenda, and she also questioned Labour’s commitment; I agree with the former remark, but dispute
	and refute the latter. She accused us and the Government of collective amnesia, but if that is the case it must be catching, as in respect of world leadership on these issues, the Climate Change Act 2008, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and much else besides were introduced under a Labour Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) observed that what matters is not what we say, but what we do, and I agree. She drew attention to the low ambition shown by the Government and the high ambition on recycling shown in Wales, and said that the Government had missed an opportunity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned farmers’ concerns about the delays in dealing with, and diminishing responsibilities of, the groceries code adjudicator, and we agree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) told Members on the Government Benches to stop obsessing about weekly bin collections and to focus instead on recycling, and she rightly expressed the concerns of her constituents about insurance for flood victims.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has great commitment and expertise in this area, including through his work with the Environment Agency. He expressed regret about the Government’s lack of ambition, which was, indeed, a general theme in the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) picked up on the comments made from the Government Benches that this issue should not be political. However, it is political, of course, by its very nature and because it is very important.
	There is a delicious irony in the phrase, “the greenest Government ever”, which was uttered so easily during the coalition’s fleeting embrace of the green movement. It is so easy to say, “I love you”, in the midst of tender fervour. Yet the morning after come the bitter recriminations, the shame and the feeling of being used.
	I know that the Minister’s heart is in the right place, so let me direct the following comments to the Secretary of State, who must take personal responsibility for the actions of the Government. If they were a business, they would have been referred to trading standards by now; they would have featured on “Rogue Traders” for ripping off the British public and stealing their votes with their false and overblown promises to be the greenest Government ever.
	On forests, the public saw earlier this year how the Government tried to rip them off: coalition failure; on the cuts to flood defences, wasting an opportunity for green growth and jobs, and putting at risk homes, businesses and people: failure; on finding a ban on wild animals in circuses just too difficult: failure; on relegating England to the lowest recycling targets in the UK, missing chances for jobs and new green industries: failure; on their slippy-slidey back-tracking on plans for mandatory reporting of carbon emissions: failure; on the delay to Labour’s plan for universal broadband by 2012: failure; on the delays and the castration of the groceries code adjudicator, letting down farmers and the consumer: failure; on ignoring Labour’s food strategy for 2030, to the consternation of the National Farmers
	Union and others: failure; on abolishing the Sustainable Development Commission, curtailing independent scrutiny of the Government’s appalling record: failure; on achieving a green light in only two out of 16 traffic lights in the “Nature Check” report by the Wildlife and Countryside Link: failure; and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer commandeering the Government’s green agenda in place of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and then killing it: failure—abject, pitiful, supine, green growth and environmental failure. Fail, fail and fail again; there is a bit of a pattern here.
	However, the Government have had success in one area. They have succeeded in splitting the Cabinet from top to toe on their green agenda, with the Chancellor boldly championing the climate-sceptics and deniers, and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pitching his shaky, leaky leadership tent in opposition. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems to be wholly absent from the battlefield, and after a lovely photo-shoot with a husky the Prime Minister has shot and eaten the poor creature. Since then, there has, understandably, not even been a whimper from the husky, but, more surprisingly, the incredible silence of the Prime Minister on all issues green since the election has been deafening. After a brief pre-election love-in, he never phones. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit it: the love affair is over, he was never serious anyway and it was just a fling? “Get over it” he might as well say.
	This Tory-led coalition Government risk being an environmental and economic catastrophe for this country. Over the past 18 months, when we should have been using green growth to stimulate our flagging economy and to lead on the environmental agenda, as Labour did when we were in government, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has instead allowed her Department to be steamrollered by the Chancellor and ignored by an indifferent Prime Minister. This is not a green agenda. This is a not a growth agenda. It is an agenda of despair. It is not a vision of hope for jobs and nature, but one of hopelessness. We do not have a Department driving forward on Labour’s legacy, but one that is actually in reverse. In place of ambition, we see abject surrender.
	Even if they have given up on green growth and the environment, at least the Conservatives can repeat their claim to be the natural party of the countryside and still get away with it, can they not? They cannot after yesterday, when they voted to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, thus weakening protections for farm workers. There was one—just one—principled Lib Dem Member who participated fully in that debate, changed his mind, to his credit, and voted with our amendment. But the combined weight of fellow Lib Dems and Tories, with one notable exception, defeated us and they defeated farm workers. So who speaks for the countryside, for green growth and for the environment? Labour does, as it always has and always will.
	I say to those on the not-so-green Benches opposite that owning large parts of the countryside is not the same as speaking for the countryside. Saying that they are green does not make them green. Talking up green growth is no substitute for making it happen with green jobs and skills, training, innovation and investment. This Government are failing. DEFRA Ministers are failing. Green growth and the natural environment will
	fail with them. I say to Ministers and the Government that they should change course now and up their game, because the country now and in future generations will not forgive a Government who, at a crucial moment, walked away from the environment and from the opportunities for green growth, upon which the health and wealth of this nation depend. If they are not up to the job, they should walk away from government—we will do it for them.

Richard Benyon: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will address the House again at the conclusion of this superb debate. The last comments made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) amused me greatly. They sounded desperate. They sounded as if he was in complete denial of the 13 years of failure, of which he was part. I, like my DEFRA colleagues, feel that we are in a Department that deals with emergencies. One of the emergencies we are dealing with is the great sense of failure that the previous Government imposed on the countryside and on the environment. We are having to work our socks off to repair the situation, but it is a challenge that we take and take seriously. We look forward to achieving on it in the coming months.
	The Government can show leadership in protecting our environment, which is exactly what this Government are doing. However, the Government alone cannot protect our environment. We believe that having communities, business, civil society and Governments working together is likely to have the greatest impact on protecting and improving our environment. We are providing new opportunities for local people to play a bigger role in protecting and improving the environment in their areas. We have some of the world’s best civil society environmental organisations to help us to protect and improve our natural environment, and we have provided the tools for them to work with us.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Richard Benyon: No, I will not give way.
	We welcome the “Nature Check” report. It is very important that the organisations that took part in it have an edgy relationship with government. They frequently come to the Department and we work closely with them, and we will get green lights on the items as we progress. When that report was produced we had been in government for 15 months, dealing with abject failures created by the hon. Member for Ogmore and the Labour party in government, for which he has to take responsibility.
	Let me deal with some of the excellent points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was missing the point. Just dealing with recycling does not deal with the whole waste problem; we need to look at this the whole way up the waste hierarchy. Unlike her Government, we will introduce proposals to ban wood from landfill next year.
	I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on a customary visionary speech. The leadership he is giving in his community on broadband, on local housing initiatives and on improving mobile coverage for his constituents is matched by this Government’s commitment to do the same for rural areas right across this country.
	The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) again showed that Labour Members just do not get the whole waste issue. I urge him to look at our waste review and see what we are achieving.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made an excellent speech in which she pointed out the failure of Labour councils. It is councils that deliver and it is coalition party councils that are achieving.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has had his time. [ Interruption. ]
	When we consider flooding, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is in my head because it has proved that there are other ways—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber, including a large number of private conversations. The Minister must be heard without his having to bellow at the top of his voice.

Richard Benyon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	There have been some excellent initiatives all around the country, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency, that have shown how we can unlock more money for flood relief and coastal erosion resilience. I commend the points she made. The total environment concept that we are rolling out around the country is showing that we can work with local government, other organisations and the wider DEFRA family to achieve a better result for the rural communities she represents.
	I remind the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) that when her party was in power it was selling off forests at quite a dramatic rate with very little protection for public access. She said that we have rejected the Pitt report, but nothing could be further from the truth: we have implemented all but one of its recommendations and I had a meeting on that recommendation today.
	I appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). There is much that is consensual about this debate although it might not feel like it at this precise moment. My right hon. Friends and I had a meeting with Sir John Beddington when we took office and he told us that we had to do something that is hard for politicians to do—look beyond the horizon of four or five years that we are accustomed to looking at in the electoral cycle. What is required is a horizon shift to deal with the possible storm that could be approaching from a shortage of energy, water and food. That requires initiative, vision and a proper approach to these issues; that is what we are doing.
	The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a fascinating speech. It is good to see that deficit denial is alive and well and living in Swansea. What he and others fail to understand is that sustainable development is now mainstream in government; it is not parked in some organisation that is peripheral—it is central to what we do.
	I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He is right that what we are looking for is joined-up policies across government. The benefits of localism come from an
	understanding not just in silos, as it was considered in the past, but with support from across government to the benefit of constituents.
	I hope that the scepticism of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the green investment bank will wither as we introduce it and she sees its benefits for new green technologies. She talked about business as usual, but this Government are not about business as usual on green technologies. This is about a horizon shift and taking a new approach.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Benyon: I do not have time—I apologise.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made an excellent point about the failures of the past that have put us 25th out of 27 in the EU on recycling. We have to improve on that. People ask what our ambition is: it is for a zero-waste economy, which is a high ambition indeed.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about dark conspiracies, but I assure her that they do not exist. She should move on from that idea and stop watching those programmes.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Health Care and Associated Professions

That the draft Medicines Act 1968 (Pharmacy) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Interests of European Union (protection)

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11055/11 and Addendum, relating to the Communication from the Commission on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Union by Criminal Law and by Administrative Investigations: An Integrated Policy to Safeguard Taxpayers’ Money; and No. 12141/11 and Addendum, relating to a Communication from the Commission on its Anti-Fraud Strategy; recognises that the UK has a strong interest in preventing criminal activity against EU funds; recalls the Government’s constructive participation in ongoing negotiations to improve the operational efficiency of the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, and to strengthen its effectiveness; notes that both documents set out initial orientations and that any more detailed, future proposals should be considered on their merits with clear evidence of necessity; emphasises the importance of fully respecting different criminal justice systems within the EU, while pursuing effective cooperation to combat fraudulent use of EU funds; and supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to ensure the effective protection of the EU’s financial interests.—(Angela Watkinson.)
	Question agreed to.

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. BBC television news this evening reported that at 12 o’clock tomorrow the Secretary of State for Health will announce the closure of accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital in my constituency. We have campaigned against that for years, and the Secretary of State should at least have had the courtesy to inform the local Members of Parliament, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and should come before the House to make such a profound statement. Have you had any advice from the Department that the Secretary of State intends to come before the House to make such an announcement?

Dawn Primarolo: The Chair has received no notification of any such statement. Strictly speaking, the matter is not one for the Chair, or for today’s business, but he has put his point on the record, and I am sure he will pursue it vigorously. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments.

PETITIONS

Social Care for Older People

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): I wish to present a petition from the Rotherham pensioners action group, led by the group’s chair, Mr Keith Billington of Foster road, Wickersley. I have a petition in similar terms with more than 500 signatures gathered by the group over the weekend of the Rotherham show last month. The petitioners want a better, fairer system of care for the future. They are worried about the crisis in care caused by big Government cuts in funding as pensioners see services cut, charges increase, and support restricted to those with the most critical care needs.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Rotherham Pensioners' Action Group,
	Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about social care for older people.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement a fair and equitable system of care for the elderly, without imposing a financial burden on those requiring care.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000969]

Send our Sister to School Campaign

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): In 2000, world leaders promised universal education by 2015. Progress has been made, but with fewer than four years to go 67 million children are still missing out on school, the vast majority of whom are girls. I am grateful to the pupils of Overfields primary school, Middlesbrough for bringing this to my attention in the most colourful way.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of pupils of Overfields Primary School, Middlesbrough,
	Declares that the Petitioners support the Send our Sister to School Campaign which aims to give girls the same chance as boys to benefit from an education and that the Petitioners support the international agreement to get all children into education by 2015.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to raise the commitment to get all children into education by 2015 at the G20 summit in November.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000972]

Liverpool Coastguard Station

Bill Esterson: The staff of and residents around Liverpool coastguard station—otherwise known as Crosby coastguard station—are trying to keep it open. In support of the petition are 51,000 names on a similar petition, which I have with me in a box. The petitioners would like the maritime operation centre to be hosted at Crosby as a means of keeping the station open, which would save the Government a significant amount of money.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Merseyside,
	Declares that the closure of Liverpool Coastguard Station would result in the loss of vital local knowledge and a reduction in the efficiency of rescues of people in difficulty along our coastline and at sea.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that Liverpool Coastguard Station remains open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000973]

TRADE UNION OFFICIALS (PUBLIC FUNDING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Aidan Burley: The general public could be forgiven for thinking that the funding of trade unions in this country was a relatively simple affair whereby employees who wish to join a union pay their subs and receive the benefits of their membership, and then out of those subs, the unions fund their activities, their offices and their costs, including the cost of the salaries of those full-time officials who spend all day on union activity rather than working on their normal job. Not so, however.
	Over the 13 years of the last Labour Government—a Labour Government funded to the tune of £10 million a year by the unions—an insipid, backhanded and frankly dodgy system emerged which ensures that millions of pounds a year of taxpayers’ money is now being used to fund political union activity. In simple terms, the taxpayer is directly funding those organising strikes and chaos, and also indirectly funding the Labour party; and I think that is wrong.

Russell Brown: Could the hon. Gentleman describe to the House his interpretation of a trade union official, because that is fundamentally different from what he is stating? There is a difference between a trade union official and a trade union representative.

Aidan Burley: If the hon. Gentleman had given me more than a minute to get going, I would have come to that point. To answer his question directly, my contention is very simple: any activities that people undertake on behalf of trade unions should be funded by the trade unions and not by the taxpayer.
	Some excellent research by the widely respected TaxPayers Alliance in September last year revealed some absolutely startling results. The TPA submitted freedom of information requests to 1,253 public sector organisations, including councils, Government Departments, primary care trusts, foundation trusts, ambulance services, fire services, and all quangos with more than 50 staff. It found the following to be the case. In 2010, trade unions received £85.8 million in total from public sector organisations. That £85 million is made up of £18.3 million in direct payments from public sector organisations—mainly the union modernisation and union learning funds—and an estimated £67.5 million in paid staff time: the subject of this debate. That total is up by 14% from 2008-09, when trade unions received just £76.1 million from public sector organisations. In 2009-10, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills alone gave unions £15 million in direct subs. In 2009-10, total public funding for the trade unions was 20% more than the combined contributions to the Labour party and the Conservative party. Finally, in 2009-10, 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at taxpayers’ expense.

Alec Shelbrooke: It may interest Members to know that in Leeds city council a white paper was brought forward by Councillor Alan
	Lamb, a local small business entrepreneur, who said that it was outrageous that the council was spending £400,000 a year of taxpayers’ money on union officials. Does my hon. Friend believe it was right that that was voted down by Labour councillors who received money to get elected to Leeds city council in the first place? Is that not a personal and prejudicial interest?

Aidan Burley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I find it astonishing that, in this place and elsewhere, anybody with an interest is required to declare it, unless it is that they are a member of a union that funds them and their local constituency party.

Robert Halfon: I should declare an interest: I am a proud trade unionist. I am a member of Prospect. Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit were also proud trade unionists. Although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment, does he not agree that despite the abuse, there are many moderate trade unions around the country that do a great job in representing people’s interests? A third of trade union members vote Conservative and Conservatives should do all that they can to build bridges with moderate trade unions.

Aidan Burley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members in Departments or other public bodies in their own time and with union funding. My question to him and to the House is: why are taxpayers funding that work?
	I want to focus on the fact that 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense in 2009-10. The TaxPayers Alliance has even broken down those employees by sector: 813 worked in local authorities, 630 in quangos, 611 in Departments, 130 in foundation and acute trusts, 96 in primary care trusts, 43 in NHS mental health trusts and 41 in fire services. My problem with those astonishing figures is simple: why should we spend hard-earned taxpayers’ money on a huge subsidy to the unions? Full-time trade union officials should be paid for by union members, not by the taxpayer.

Tom Blenkinsop: I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to make this speech in front of the steel workers whom I have the privilege to represent, because the regulations also apply to the private sector. The Government, who are trying to provoke public sector strikes, should be more fearful of small and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector that are not unionised, where the incidents of wild-cat strikes are increasing. The Government need unions on side to deal with the vast amounts of people and to keep the costs of human resources down. Adjournment debates such as this provoke poor industrial relations.

Aidan Burley: I think that the hon. Gentleman will come to regret that question—I am not even sure what his question was. I simply point out that what goes on in the private sector does not bother me because it involves private money. It is public money that I am talking about.
	Trade unions are an important part of society and of Britain’s big society. However, the support that they get from the taxpayer has got way out of hand. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members, but they must do it in their own time and with union funding. Why are the public paying for it?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Aidan Burley: I will make a little progress.
	In the six months to March, the unions had enough money to give almost £5 million of donations to the Labour party, while paying their leaders up to £145,000 a year, which is what the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers boss, Bob Crow, receives. In fact, 38 trade union general secretaries and chief executives receive remuneration of more than £100,000. To name but one, the former joint general secretary of Unite, Derek Simpson, received more than £500,000, including severance pay of £310,000. That is in addition to the fact that the trade unions get £18.3 million—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Although Members on both sides of the House clearly have strong views on this subject, I remind them that this Adjournment debate is being televised. The behaviour of Members does not always reflect well on them. The hon. Member who has secured this Adjournment debate is entitled to be heard.

Aidan Burley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that all Members will agree that I am trying to be quite generous in taking interventions, but I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.
	In addition to what I mentioned earlier, the trade unions currently get £18.3 million in direct payments from the taxpayer every year through the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund, so they have nearly £20 million in their bank accounts before we factor in any time off at the taxpayer’s expense. Surely they can cover their costs with a £20 million annual grant plus all their subs.

Guy Opperman: I, too, wish to stress that I support the unions, and I met my union representative today for an hour in relation to certain matters. However, what does my hon. Friend feel the money—the £85 million—could be spent on?

Aidan Burley: The very simple answer to that is front-line services, not full-time union officials.
	The legal background to the matter is that under section 168 in part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a union representative is permitted paid time off for union duties. According to ACAS, those duties relate to anything including the terms and conditions of employment, the physical conditions of workers and matters of trade union membership or non-membership. However, under the same Act, any employee who is a union representative or a member of a recognised trade union is also entitled to unpaid time off to undertake what are called “union activities”, as distinct from duties. As defined by ACAS, union activities can include voting in a union election or attending a meeting regarding union business, but there
	is no statutory requirement to pay union representatives or members for time spent on union activities.
	[Interruption.] 
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear what he is saying.
	Union duties and union activities both fall under the remit of a union representative. Some union representatives are therefore currently being paid for undertaking both activities and duties, and I think that is wrong.

Ian Murray: rose—

Phil Wilson: rose—

Aidan Burley: I will give way in a minute.
	In addition, union learning representatives are entitled to paid time off for duties including analysing learning or training needs, providing information about learning and training matters, arranging learning or training or promoting the values of learning and training. I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is chuntering, is not all that the job of the human resources department?
	In 2004—[Interruption.] Just be quiet. In 2004, the Labour Government made a commitment to boost the number of union learning representatives in the work force to 20,000, a threefold increase. The upshot is that a significant number of union representatives—nearly 2,500 full-time equivalents—are fully paid for by public funds. That means that the trade unions themselves do not bear their own representation costs.

Phil Wilson: Speaking as somebody who in the early 1980s was a member of the Civil and Public Services Association and received facility time to work as a trade union representative, may I say that where I worked was 90%-plus union organised, and we did not have any strikes? We had a great working relationship in the building, because we could sit down and talk through problems with the management, who enjoyed it. If we started where the hon. Gentleman wants, we would end up where part of my union ended up. In 1984, the CPSA was banned from GCHQ—

James Wharton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should Opposition Members declare their interest if they have received union funding in their capacity as Members of this House, or for political campaigns, before making interventions? I would be grateful if you could clarify the rules on that matter.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Wharton, I am sure that everybody is aware of what interests they should be declaring when they participate in any debate. That applies to an Adjournment debate, which is normally the property of the Member who has secured it.

Aidan Burley: I have forgotten part of the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made, but I simply say that the unions are entitled to do what they like, and I am sure a lot of what he did was very good work. My point is that they should do it on their own time and it should be paid for by themselves, not by the taxpayer.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Aidan Burley: I will in just one minute.
	The upshot of all the extra money provided to the unions is that a huge amount of money is freed up, whether from the direct grants or the union fees, that the unions can use on political campaigns. If their other costs are paid at the taxpayer’s expense, the unions can use the rest of their income for political activities.

Ian Murray: rose —

Julie Elliott: rose —

Aidan Burley: I will not give way.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could address the distinction between paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for union activities. What are the Government doing about union officials who play the system and use their paid time off for political activities?
	Further, are the Government planning to mandate public bodies to record more accurately what time is taken off for political activities, which should not be funded by the taxpayer? We know from a written answer from the Department for Communities and Local Government that public bodies do not even bother recording union time accurately.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Aidan Burley: I will just read this out and then give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
	“if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the use of (a) facilities, (b) resources and (c) staffing time for trade union duties and activities.”
	The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), replied:
	“The TUC have estimated that there are 200,000 union representatives in workplaces across the United Kingdom. Information on the amounts spent on paid time”
	on
	“the provision of facilities for trade union officials in the public sector is not widely recorded or transparent…Estimates have suggested that…‘facility time’ is more prevalent in the civil service than the rest of the public sector and the private sector, with civil service departments spending, on average, 0.2% of annual pay…on facility time, compared to 0.14% in the”
	whole public sector and just
	“0.04% in the private sector...We would actively encourage local authorities to reduce the amount of facility time to the norm of private sector levels.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 126W-27W.]

Anna Soubry: I hope that as a shop steward I represented my members with integrity, vigour and some success. I never took a single penny piece from the public purse. Does my hon. Friend, who has so commendably introduced this Adjournment debate, agree that unions would advance their cause if they stopped taking public money? If they did that, more people might join them because they would not be seen as extensions of the Labour party.

Aidan Burley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the point that I was trying to make. My direct question to the Government is this: are they willing to go further and change the 1992 Act, so that trade unions should fund all their activities from their subs? There should be no taxpayer subsidy for those who take time off to spend on union activity.

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Ian Murray: rose—

Aidan Burley: I will not give way.
	That would be many people’s preference. By way of an example, the excellent, independent and non-taxpayer funded campaigning website order-order, or the Guido Fawkes blog, has been highlighting the practice of paying union officials out of the taxpayer purse. Following its campaign, full-time taxpayer-funded trade union officials have become known as “Pilgrims” in the media, after Paul Staines exposed one such full-time union rep named Jane Pilgrim as a full-time trade union organiser working in the NHS for Unison. She came to public attention in 2011 after criticising the Government’s health policies. Despite being billed as a nurse, she was found to be a full-time trade union official, being paid £40,000 by the hospital. She is now under investigation by both St George’s hospital and Unison for running a private health consultancy—called The Pilgrim Way—on the side, creating a conflict of interests.
	As the website states:
	“There is no justification for the taxpayer paying a lobbying organisation to fight for an unsustainable mess in the interests of a vocal minority group. We don’t pay the arms dealers and the tobacco lobbyists’ staffing bills”.
	Let us consider this classic example, which was flagged up by none other than the Black Country’s Express and Star:
	“Judy Foster…is employed as an administration officer by the fire service…But for the past seven years the Labour councillor has been devoting all her working time to Unison, representing 280 fire workers…The fire service has now insisted that Councillor Foster…spends half her…time…on fire service duties and half with the union…But Unison has appealed against the offer and says her union work should be full time and funded entirely by the taxpayer.”
	My question is why and on what grounds?

Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a proud member of Unite the Union and the chair of the Unite parliamentary group, I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to come along to our group and tell us where we are going wrong. One of the main factors in a trade union official’s job is identifying and preventing health and safety problems in the workplace—not the office, the workplace. Has he factored in any of the figures from the TaxPayers Alliance?

Aidan Burley: My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is to ask what he thinks the human resources department or the Health and Safety Executive are for. Public sector organisations have those people, so there is total duplication.

Ian Murray: rose —

Jim Sheridan: rose —

Aidan Burley: The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) just asked what has gone wrong, and I will tell him. The Express and Star continued:
	“Councillor Foster, who was elected in 1998, already picks up £9,300 in allowances from Dudley Council along with £14,475 as vice chairman of the West Midlands Police Authority. With her £28,000 job, it brings her combined taxpayer-funded salary and allowances to more than £51,000.”
	It is no wonder that a YouGov poll in conjunction with the TaxPayers Alliance shows more than half the country would like to see an end to the controversial practice of public sector-funded trade union officials.

Jason McCartney: I, too, declare an interest as I am the former father of the National Union of Journalists chapel at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) attended the TUC last month in London. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) find it surprising that while representing the union members at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds, the fat cat boss at ITV, who was slashing jobs while taking millions in pay, shares and perks, has now been tasked by the Leader of the Opposition with reforming the Labour party?

Aidan Burley: I would love to say that I was surprised, but after revising for this debate, I am not surprised by anything anymore.
	It is my simple contention that trade unions should pay for representation within public sector organisations through subscriptions. It is unfair that taxpayers should have to shoulder that burden. Unions raise substantial sums through membership subscriptions. For example, subs in the Home Office alone came to more than £2 million in 2009-10. Programmes that give taxpayers’ money to trade unions under the guise of work force improvement should also be scrapped. This includes the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund.
	Will the Minister explain what plans the Government have to end full-time trade union work in the public sector? Will he pledge to end full-time representatives who spend 100% of their time on trade union work while being paid their salary by the taxpayer? Will he mandate all public bodies to record accurately time spent on both union duties and activities? Will the Government go one step further? Employment legislation currently requires employers to make available a reasonable amount of time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. Will he change that so that all time taken off for trade union activities is billed back to the union so that the taxpayer is no longer funding their work?
	Finally, given that the unions start the financial year with a £20 million grant from the taxpayer, are the Government looking at reviewing, paring down or abolishing the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund? The taxpayers of this country are currently bankrolling the unions. The equivalent of 2,500 full-time officials are being paid for by the taxpayer, not to do the job of representation but to undertake full-time campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions. This is at a cost of £86 million a year to the taxpayer, with 170,000 days off for union activities and £23 million of perks such as photocopying and phone
	calls. In an age of austerity, that £86 million is the equivalent of the expenditure of the Office of Fair Trading. Taxpayers expect their money to be spent on public services, not union services. We can no longer afford this Spanish practice, and I call on the Minister to end it.

Nick Hurd: There was I thinking that this was going to be a quiet conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) in the traditional calm of the Adjournment debate slot, but I was wrong. I congratulate him on securing the debate and the robust way in which he presented his argument.
	In the short time I have, I shall try to clarify the Government’s position. First, we need to recognise that employment legislation requires employers to make available a reasonable amount of time off for trade union representatives to carry out their trade union-related duties. There are nine areas of statute where union representatives have rights to paid time off to perform their duties. These cover areas such as representation, informing and consulting, collective redundancy, learning and health and safety. There is a reason for this. There is a clearly defined framework for consultation and negotiation between managers and employees to support good employee relations.
	There is a cost to that, however. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has estimated that paid time off for union duties costs employers £400 million annually—0.07% of the total annual pay bill—over half of which, £225 million, fell to public sector employers, with £175 million falling to private sector employers. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I agree that it is important that the right balance is found between effective representation of trade union members and value for money for the taxpayer.

Robert Halfon: Of course we understand that there is abuse, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are neutral unions that use facility time constructively? For example, the First Division Association uses facility time to resolve workplace disputes and to help families of Foreign Office staff relocate overseas. That is valuable work and we should be grateful that the FDA does it. I say that only to make the point that not all unions are the Bob Crows described today.

Nick Hurd: I accept my hon. Friend’s valuable point, but there is clearly a case for reviewing whether we have the right balance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase asked a number of questions that I would like to try to address in the time available, so I am afraid that I will have no time for interventions. He asked about the distinction between paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for union activities, and asked what the Government were doing about union officials who, in his words, “play the system” and use their paid time off for political activities. The ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities provides a detailed framework for those matters. It sets out examples of trade union duties that should attract reasonable paid time off and examples of trade union activities that can attract reasonable unpaid time off. A review of
	current practice is under way in the civil service, but, anecdotally, we believe that many Departments, if not most, currently give paid time off for such trade union activities where reasonable unpaid time off may be more appropriate.
	My hon. Friend then asked whether the Government were planning to mandate public bodies to record more accurately which time is taken off for political activities that should not funded by the taxpayer. He will be aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced at the Conservative party conference that the Government intend to consult on ensuring transparency about union facility time for which Departments—and ultimately the taxpayers—are paying. We will publish information on civil service trade union representatives and the amount of paid time that is spent on union work, as well as the overall percentage of the pay bill for which this accounts.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: I said that I would take no more interventions because of the time.
	The central point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made, about the 1992 Act, is a matter for Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to answer. However, I assure him that I will make them aware of the points that he made and ask them to write to him directly.
	In answer to the list of questions that my hon. Friend asked at the end of his speech—about Government plans to end taxpayer-funded full-time trade union work in the public sector, end full-time representatives and require transparency about the costs of trade union representatives—the Minister for the Cabinet Office also announced at the Conservative party conference that the Government intend to consult the civil service trade unions on the following propositions. We will consult on introducing a cap on the amount of facilities time that Departments can offer, to bring it in line with the statutory requirements. We will consult trade unions on the practice of allowing trade union representatives to spend 100% of their time on trade union work paid for by the civil service.

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: I will not, out of courtesy to my hon. Friend who secured the debate, as I want to try to answer his questions.
	We do not think it reasonable for the civil service to pay people purely to do union work. It is arguably impossible for them to represent the views of the staff in their Department adequately if they are not embedded in its work. In some circumstances, Departments go beyond the requirements of the law by giving paid time off for trade union representatives to take part in internal trade union activities, such as executive group meetings, annual conferences and recruitment meetings. To address that we will consult trade unions about any practice of paying for such trade union activities, with a view instead to enabling employees to take reasonable unpaid leave, as required in statute. In order to ensure transparency about the union facility time for which Departments are paying, we will publish information relating to civil
	service trade union representatives and the amount of paid time spent on union work, as well as the overall percentage of the pay bill for which this accounts.
	As for whether we would go further with employment legislation, I have said that BIS Ministers would respond more fully to that point. However, there are no plans for the law on trade union facility time to be changed specifically for the public sector or otherwise. A reasonable amount of paid time off can offer value for money for the taxpayer. For example, it can minimise working time lost owing to disputes and accidents at work. However, it is important that the Government ensure that public sector employers manage the paid time off that they grant their union representatives effectively to deliver those potential benefits, which are the justification for spending taxpayers’ money.
	In answer to the last point that my hon. Friend made, about the grant for the union modernisation fund, there
	are currently no plans to review the Government’s existing commitment to the union learning fund, as set in “Skills for Sustainable Growth”.
	In conclusion, as I have said previously, it is important that employees are represented fairly by union officials. However, in the current financial climate, it is right that the vital balance is found between effective representation of trade union members and value for money for the taxpayer. The measures proposed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office will address the current burden on the taxpayer, while wider transparency measures will ensure that other public sector organisations offer value to the taxpayer. It is essential that we achieve a fair balance on behalf of the taxpayer, and I am happy to keep my hon. Friend updated—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).